Aprepitant as an add-on therapy in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Anti-Emetics in Children Receiving Chemotherapy for Solid Tumors and Leukemia: Pharmacology and Optimization of Therapy for Nausea and Vomiting

The management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children remains challenging due to differences in the chemotherapy regimens, their relative emetogenicity compared to that in adults and differences in drug metabolism and the available formulations. The common four classes of anti-emetics used for the treatment and prophylaxis of CINV in children include dexamethasone, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), and olanzapine. The appropriate dose of dexamethasone for CINV prophylaxis in children is unknown, with a significant variability in dosage ranging between 6 and 32 mg/m2/day. The dose of dexamethasone is decreased by 30% when this drug is combined with (fos)aprepitant in children, in contrast to a decrease of 50% required in adults. The use of aprepitant in younger children (<12 years) is often hampered by the non-availability of oral suspension formulations in many countries; alternatively, 80 mg capsules are administered for 1-3 days in certain institutes to children weighing between 15 and 40 kg. Among the different 5HT3RAs, palonosetron is comparatively metabolized faster in children than in adults, requiring a higher dosage for similar efficacy to that achieved in adults. Olanzapine is a newer agent, used in doses between 0.1 and 0.14 mg/kg/day in children, with good anti-emetic efficacy, but has sedation and hyperglycemia as concerning adverse effects. Drug interactions between anti-emetics and between anti-emetics and chemotherapy/supportive agents (azole antifungals, cyclosporine, arsenic trioxide), especially QTc prolongation, should be considered during prescription.

Translation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Hindi Language Version of the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT) in the Indian Population

OBJECTIVES

To translate the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT) into Hindi and validate it in Indian pediatric cancer patients and survivors.

METHODS

The PeNAT-Hindi was finalized by forward and backward translations, and pilot testing. The PeNAT-Hindi was administered to 200 Hindi-speaking pediatric (4-18 y) cancer patients/survivors, in three groups. These included pediatric cancer patients who had recently received chemotherapy (n = 150); who received no chemotherapy within 5 d (n = 25) and survivors (n = 25). Construct validity was tested by comparing scores among the three groups. Test-retest reliability and criterion validity were estimated by the correlation of the first PeNAT score with the second (taken 1 h later) PeNAT score and the number of vomiting/retching episodes, respectively. Convergent validity and discriminant validity were estimated by correlating PeNAT scores with parent-assessed nausea severity, and pain, respectively. The responsiveness was tested by comparing second PeNAT scores with subsequent divergent PeNAT scores among patients reporting subjective change (improvement and worsening, respectively) in nausea severity.

RESULTS

Test-retest reliability of PeNAT-Hindi was good (intraclass correlation = 0.791). The initial PeNAT score had moderate correlation with the number of vomiting/retching episodes (Spearman ρ = 0.401). Median PeNAT scores in group 1 versus groups 2 and 3 were significantly different (p < 0.001). Initial PeNAT scores showed a moderate correlation with parent-assessed nausea (Spearman ρ = 0.657) and a weak correlation with parent-assessed pain (Spearman ρ = 0.319). The responsiveness (standardized response mean) of PeNAT-Hindi to the change in nausea severity was -1.79 (improvement) and 2.19 (worsening), respectively.

CONCLUSION

PeNAT-Hindi showed good reliability and acceptable validity. It may be used among Hindi-speaking children for measuring nausea. The responsiveness of PeNAT-Hindi needs further evaluation.

Olanzapine cost-effectiveness in vomiting and nausea from highly emetogenic chemotherapy in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of addition of olanzapine to a prophylactic antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, dexamethasone and ondansetron among children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA.

METHODS

Health states were estimated using individual patient-level outcome data from a randomised trial. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated from the patient perspective for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA. One-way sensitivity analysis was done by varying the cost of olanzapine, cost of hospitalisation and utility values by ±25%.

RESULTS

The olanzapine arm had an increment of 0.0018 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) over the control arm. The mean total expenditure in the olanzapine arm was greater by US$0.51, US$0.43, US$6.73, US$11.05 and US$12.35 in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR($/QALY) was US$282.60 in India, US$241.42 in Bangladesh, US$3755.93 in Indonesia, US$6161.83 in the UK and US$6887.41 in the USA. The NMB was US$9.86, US$10.12, US$14.08, US$44.74 and US$98.79 for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR estimates of the base case and sensitivity analysis were below the willingness-to-pay threshold in all scenarios.

CONCLUSION

The addition of olanzapine as a fourth agent for antiemetic prophylaxis is cost-effective despite an increase in overall expenditure. Olanzapine should be uniformly considered for children receiving HEC.

Addition of aprepitant improves acute emesis control in children and adolescents receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia: a randomised, open-label trial

OBJECTIVES

More than 50% patients develop emesis during induction therapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). The addition of aprepitant for emesis control in children receiving induction for AML have not been explored.

METHODS

A single-institutional randomised, open-label trial (NCT02979548) was conducted where children between 5 and 18 years with the diagnosis of AML being planned for 3+7 induction regimen were included. All study participants received ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg) every 8 hours for 8 days starting 30 min prior to chemotherapy. Children belonging to aprepitant group additionally received aprepitant capsules (15-40 kg=days 1-3, 80 mg; >40 kg=day 1, 125 mg and days 2-3, 80 mg) starting from 1 hour prior to chemotherapy. The proportion of patients with complete response (CR) in chemotherapy induced vomiting (CIV) in acute phase (day 1-8), delayed phase (day 9-13), overall and initial 96 hours were recorded along with severity of vomiting and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Total 78 children were randomised (Aprepitant group: 37 and control group: 41). The proportion of patients with CR in CIV was significantly higher in Aprepitant group in acute phase (p=0.007), overall phase (p=0.007) and in initial 96 hours (p<0.001) but it was not different in delayed phase (p=0.07). The first episode of vomiting was also significantly delayed in aprepitant group (p=0.02). Adverse effect profile was similar in two groups.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant significantly improves emesis control in children receiving induction therapy for AML, especially in acute phase and should be routinely incorporated as part of antiemetic prophylaxis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02979548).

Risk factors associated with nausea and vomiting in children with cancer receiving chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Despite treatment with antiemetic medications, nausea remains uncontrolled for many children receiving chemotherapy. One reason is that risk factors for nausea in children remain poorly explored. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) in children.

METHODS

Prospective, observational study including 101 children (median age 6.4 years, range 0.8-17.9) with cancer receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were complete control of acute and delayed CIN, defined as no nausea in the acute phase 0-24 h after chemotherapy and in the delayed phase starting after the acute phase and ending 5 days later. Multivariable analyses included age, sex, cancer type, susceptibility to motion sickness, chemotherapy duration, numbers of antiemetics, co-administration with opioids or tricyclic antidepressants, and previously uncontrolled nausea or vomiting.

RESULTS

Acute CIN was associated with susceptibility to motion sickness (odds ratio [OR] 5.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-33.7) and older age (OR 4.19, 95% CI 1.30-14.7), comparing age group 8-18 years with 0-3 years. Delayed CIN was associated with uncontrolled acute nausea or vomiting (OR 10.3, 95% CI 2.65-50.9), highly emetogenic chemotherapy (OR 8.26, 95% CI 1.17-76.8), and having a hematologic cancer type (OR 7.81, 95% CI 1.05-79.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Susceptibility to motion sickness and age can influence the risk of acute CIN. More research is needed on how best to integrate risk information in preventive antiemetic strategies. Sufficient acute nausea and vomiting control are crucial to prevent delayed CIN.

The Effect and Safety of Olanzapine on Nausea and Vomiting in Children Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Background

In order to improve the complete recovery of nausea and vomiting, we conducted a study with the aim of preventing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in children undergoing moderate emetogenic chemotherapy.

Materials and Methods

A clinical trial study was done on 130 children received chemotherapy. Patients received olanzapine and placebo. All groups received granisetron along with dexamethasone (DEX). The severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) induced by chemotherapy was compared in two groups.

Results

The severity of nausea on the first, second, third, and fourth days was not significantly different (P > .05) in two groups. The number of patients without vomiting was significantly different during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy between patients in the two groups (82.3% vs 64.5%; P = .016).

Conclusion

This study showed that olanzapine, which acts as an inhibitor of neurotransmitters, had a favorable efficacy in controlling acute and delayed CINV. More studies with large sample size are needed to compare the effect of olanzapine with other agents including aprepitant and palonosetron in the prevention of CINV.

[Antineoplastic drug-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric onco-hematology: 2022: Guidelines from the supportive care committee of the French Society of Childhood Cancer (SFCE)]

Nausea and vomiting induced by cancer treatment (CINV) remain one of the most common and feared side effects in children despite the use of new drugs to prevent them. The existing recommendations for the prophylaxis and treatment of CINV are based on adult patients in Anglo-Saxon societies. Based on a recent review of the literature, we focused on specific pediatric issues in order to offer recommendations validated by the supportive care committee of the French society for childhood cancer.

Efficacy and Safety of Olanzapine in Children Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Double-blind Placebo-controlled Phase 3 Trial

BACKGROUND

In this trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of olanzapine in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, patients aged 3 to 18 years were randomly assigned to either the olanzapine group or the placebo group. All patients received intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone 30 minutes before highly emetogenic chemotherapy, followed by oral ondansetron for 48 hours. Participants in the olanzapine group received olanzapine once daily on days 1 and 2, while those in the control group received a placebo in the same dosage and schedule. The primary objective was: (a) to compare the complete control rates of vomiting in the delayed phase and (b) to compare the complete control rates of vomiting in acute and overall phases. The secondary objective was to evaluate the safety of olanzapine and the need for rescue medications.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients were randomly assigned either to the olanzapine group (n=63) or the control group (n=65). Complete control of vomiting between olanzapine and placebo group was 73% versus 48% ( P =0.005) in the delayed phase, 60% versus 54% ( P =0.46) in the acute phase, and 48% versus 34% ( P =0.117) in the overall phase, respectively. Grades 1 and 2 sedation was greater in the olanzapine group (46% vs. 14%; P <0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the placebo group required rescue medications for vomiting compared with in the olanzapine group ( P =0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine significantly improved complete control of vomiting in the delayed phase. A considerably lesser proportion of patients in the olanzapine group needed rescue medications.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen for children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy: Individual patient data analysis of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In this study, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for children receiving HEC in India, United Kingdom, and the United States.

PROCEDURE

We utilized individual patient-level outcome data from a pediatric randomized trial, which demonstrated the superiority of an aprepitant-based anti-emetic prophylaxis over standard ondansetron and dexamethasone for HEC. Health state for each day of follow-up was analyzed and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB) for each country were estimated. Sensitivity analyses by varying cost of aprepitant, hospitalization, and health state utility values by ±25% were conducted.

RESULTS

Use of the aprepitant-based regimen resulted in gain of 0.0019 QALY per chemotherapy cycle along with cost savings of $22.25, $1335.52, and $6612.10 for India, United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively. The cost savings per QALY was estimated to be $12,355.84 for India, $734,282.90 for the United Kingdom, and $3,567,564.11 for the United States. The cost savings for 50% gain in the percentage of days without grade 3 vomiting was $124.18 for India, $7451.63 for the United Kingdom, and $36,892.76 for the United States. The NMB for gain in QALY was $33.62, $1418.60, and $6727.01 for India, United Kingdom, and the United States, respectively. The estimates remained cost-effective across all scenarios of the sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant-based anti-emetic regimen is cost-effective for children receiving HEC. It results in overall cost savings and reduced healthcare-resource utilization.

A scoping review of nausea, vomiting and retching measurement methods in children with cancer

Evaluation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the pediatric population is subject to diverse approaches. This scoping review summarizes the methods used in clinical studies that assessed nausea, vomiting or retching in children with cancer. We conducted a literature search of studies indexed in EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE after 2000. Studies were included if they involved patients ≤18 years of age diagnosed with cancer, and had nausea, vomiting or retching as a primary study outcome. We excluded studies that reported only parent- or clinician-proxy measures without including the child's self-reported NVR, and those without specifying the NVR data collection process. The literature search identified twenty-four studies evaluating pediatric nausea, vomiting or retching. In the assessment of NVR, structured surveys were the most commonly used instrument for NVR assessment (75%) and the use of patient diaries (50%). Nine studies (38%) relied solely on self-reports from children as the outcome measure, while fifteen studies (62%) solicited input from parents/ caregivers and healthcare providers in addition to children's self-reports. Almost all the studies reported the frequency (n = 24) and/or severity (n = 23) of NVR symptoms and the use of antiemetic therapy (n = 19). Fewer studies evaluated distress caused by the symptoms (n = 2) and the effects of symptoms on activities of daily living (n = 4). Incorporating NVR measurement tools as part of standard of care for pediatric patients undergoing chemotherapy is strongly advocated. Based on the age group, we recommend the use of such tools comprising Likert scale, pictorial scales and structured scripts to assess various dimensions of a child's NVR experience.

Improving Guideline-Congruent Care for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis in Pediatric Oncology Patients

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a very common side effect of pediatric cancer therapy. High-quality, evidence-based, pediatric-specific guidelines for prophylaxis and treatment of CINV are available. At many centers, guideline-concordant care is uncommon. We formed a multidisciplinary quality improvement team to implement guideline-concordant care for CINV prophylaxis at our center. We present the results following the first year of our interventions.

METHODS

We planned and implemented a multipronged approach in three key phases: (1) developing and publishing an acute CINV prophylaxis pathway, (2) education of providers, and (3) updating the computerized provider order entry system. We used iterative, sequential Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and behavioral economic strategies to improve adherence to guideline-concordant CINV prophylaxis. We focused on aprepitant usage as a key area for improvement.

RESULTS

At the beginning of the study period, < 50% of patients were receiving guideline-concordant CINV prophylaxis and < 15% of eligible patients were receiving aprepitant. After 1 year, more than 60% of patients were receiving guideline-concordant care and 50% of eligible patients were receiving aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

We describe the development and implementation of a standardized pathway for prevention of acute CINV in pediatric oncology patients. With a multidisciplinary, multifaceted approach, we demonstrate significant improvements to guideline-congruent CINV prophylaxis.

Development and validation of a combined liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry assay for the quantification of aprepitant and dexamethasone in human plasma to support pharmacokinetic studies in pediatric patients

A pharmacokinetic study was set up to investigate the pharmacokinetics of the anti-emetic agents aprepitant and dexamethasone and the drug-drug interaction between these drugs in children. In order to quantify aprepitant and dexamethasone, a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay was developed and validated for the simultaneous analysis of aprepitant and dexamethasone. Protein precipitation with acetonitrile-methanol (1:1, v/v) was used to extract the analytes from plasma. The assay was based on reversed-phase chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry detection operating in the positive ion mode. The assay was validated based on the guidelines on bioanalytical methods by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency. The calibration model was linear and a weighting factor of 1/concentration² was used over the range of 0.1-50 ng/mL for aprepitant and 1-500 ng/mL for dexamethasone. Intra-assay and inter-assay bias were within ±20% for all analytes at the lower limit of quantification and within ±15% at remaining concentrations. Dilution integrity tests showed that samples exceeding the upper limit of quantification can be diluted 100 times in control matrix. Stability experiments showed that the compounds are stable in the biomatrix for 25 h at room temperatures and 89 days at -20 °C. This assay is considered suitable for pharmacokinetic studies and will be used to study the drug-drug interaction between aprepitant and dexamethasone in pediatric patients.

Dexamethasone dosing for prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in pediatric patients: A systematic review

A systematic review was undertaken to describe dexamethasone doses studied for chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) prophylaxis in pediatric patients and their effects on achieving complete acute CIV control. No dose-finding studies were identified. However, 16 studies assessing pediatric patients who received dexamethasone were included and classified according to the emetogenicity of chemotherapy administered. Eight different total daily dexamethasone doses were administered to patients on day 1 of highly emetogenic chemotherapy: three in conjunction with aprepitant/fosaprepitant plus a 5HT₃ antagonist and five in conjunction with a 5HT₃ antagonist. Five different total daily dexamethasone doses were administered in conjunction with a 5HT₃ antagonist to patients on day 1 of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of studies identified, meta-analysis was not possible. The optimal dexamethasone dose to control acute CIV and to minimize harms in pediatric patients remains uncertain. This is a key area for future research.

Olanzapine for Prevention of Vomiting in Children and Adolescents Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Investigator-Initiated, Randomized, Open-Label Trial

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant toxicity of chemotherapy. Olanzapine is recommended in adult patients for the prevention of CINV but has not been prospectively investigated in children.

METHODS

This investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label trial evaluated olanzapine in children (ages 5-18 years) scheduled to receive the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). All participants received aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone during and 2 days after chemotherapy. Participants in the study group additionally received oral olanzapine 0.14 mg/kg/day (rounded to the nearest 2.5 mg; maximum, 10 mg) during the chemotherapy block and 3 days postchemotherapy. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates (no vomiting and no rescue medication) between the groups in the acute, delayed, and overall periods. Nausea comparison and safety evaluation were secondary and additional objectives, respectively. The collection of outcomes and adverse events was performed daily until the completion of the overall period.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients underwent randomization. We performed a modified intention-to-treat analysis on 231 patients (116 in the control group and 115 in the study group). A higher proportion of patients in the olanzapine group achieved CR in the acute period (78% v 59%; P = .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001) and overall period (64% v 38%; P < .001) than in the control group. The proportion of patients with no nausea was significantly higher in the olanzapine group in the acute period (74% v 52%; P < .001), delayed period (74% v 47%; P < .001), and overall period (64% v 37%; P < .001). Grade 1/2 somnolence was greater in the olanzapine group (35% v 11%; P < .001). There was no grade 3/4 somnolence reported.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine significantly improved CR rates for vomiting in children receiving the first cycle of HEC.

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.

Smartphone App to Self-Monitor Nausea During Pediatric Chemotherapy Treatment: User-Centered Design Process

Background

Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects for children receiving chemotherapy. Limited evidence is available to guide antiemetic recommendations; therefore, prospective and reliable evaluation of antiemetic efficacy is needed. Smartphone apps can be used to effortlessly and precisely collect patient-reported outcomes in real time.

Objective

Our objective was to develop a smartphone app to monitor nausea and vomiting episodes in pediatric cancer patients aged 0 to 18 years and to test its usability and adherence to its use.

Methods

We used a user-centered design process and the evolutionary prototype model to develop and evaluate the app. Multidisciplinary group discussions and several rounds of patient feedback and modification were conducted. We translated the validated Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool to assess nausea severity in children aged 4 to 18 years. The child’s own term for nausea was interactively incorporated in the nausea severity question, with response options expressed as 4 illustrative faces. Parent-reported outcomes were used for children aged 0 to 3 years. Reminders were sent using push notifications in order to ensure high response rates. Children aged 0 to 18 years who were undergoing chemotherapy were recruited from the Department of Pediatric Oncology at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet to evaluate the app.

Results

The app’s most important function was to record nausea severity in children. After assistance from a researcher, children aged 4 to 18 years were able to report their symptoms in the app, and parents were able to report symptoms for their children aged 0 to 3 years. Children (n=20, aged 2.0-17.5 years) and their parents evaluated the app prospectively during a collective total of 60 chemotherapy cycles. They expressed that the app was user-friendly, intuitive, and that the time spent on data entry was fair. The response rates were on average 92%, 93%, and 80% for the day before, the first day of, and the next 3 days after chemotherapy, respectively. Researchers and clinicians were able to obtain an overview of the patient’s chemotherapy dates and responses through a secure and encrypted web-based administrative portal. Data could be downloaded for further analysis.

Conclusions

The user-friendly app could be used to facilitate future pediatric antiemetic trials and to refine antiemetic treatment during chemotherapy.

Factors Associated With Chemotherapy-Induced Vomiting Control in Pediatric Patients Receiving Moderately or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Pooled Analysis

PURPOSE

To identify factors associated with chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control in pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An individual, patient-level, pooled analysis was performed using data from five clinical trials of aprepitant or fosaprepitant in pediatric patients receiving HEC or MEC. The proportion of individuals who experienced no vomiting (complete CIV control) during the phase of interest was the primary study end point. The association of acute-phase complete CIV control (from first chemotherapy dose to 24 hours after the last chemotherapy dose of the chemotherapy block) with age, sex, race, cancer type, acute-phase duration, and antiemetic regimen was examined. Association of the same factors and acute-phase complete CIV control with complete CIV control in the delayed phase (end of acute phase until ≤ 96 hours later) was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 735 patients (mean age, 8.9 years; range, 0.3 to 17.9 years) were included in the acute-phase analysis. Acute-phase complete CIV control was less likely in older patients (relative risk [RR], 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98 per year) and longer acute-phase duration (RR, 0.89 per day; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.94 per day). Receipt of ondansetron plus aprepitant or fosaprepitant was associated with a higher likelihood of acute-phase complete CIV control versus ondansetron alone (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.50). Delayed-phase complete CIV control was more likely in patients with acute-phase complete CIV control (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.34) and in those who received aprepitant or fosaprepitant.

CONCLUSION

Younger age, shorter acute-phase duration, and antiemetic regimen were associated with acute-phase complete CIV control in pediatric patients receiving HEC or MEC. Acute-phase complete CIV control and antiemetic regimen were associated with delayed-phase complete CIV control.

[Prevention and treatment of antineoplastic drug-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric onco-hematology: An update]

Antineoplastic drug induced nausea and vomiting are common adverse events in cancer care of paediatric patients ; therefore, prevention and management of these adverse events is a major concern for healthcare professionals. There are common features between paediatric and adult patients in terms of the emetogenic level depending on antineoplastic agents or about available medicines. However, there are also specificities for paediatric population including individual risk factors of emesis or nausea assessment for example. Knowledge relative to available medicines is also limited in the paediatric population, especially for recent medicines. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview about antiemetics in paediatric oncology to clinicians and other healthcare professionals involved in paediatric cancer care. First of all, we describe physiopathological paediatric specificity, risk factors and clinical assessment of antineoplastic drug induced nausea and vomiting. Secondly, we focus on available medicines and also address the issue of complementary and alternative medicines.

Latest Update on Prevention of Acute Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common cause of acute morbidity that impacts quality of life in children receiving cancer treatment. Here, we review the evolution of CINV prophylaxis guidelines in children, with an emphasis on the literature published in the last 5 years, to bring the reader up to date.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have led to the adoption of the "triple therapy" regimen of antiemetic prophylaxis (a 5-HT3 antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin-1 antagonist) as the backbone of recommendations for the prevention of CINV in children. Areas of new data include the addition of aprepitant and inclusion of palonosetron as a non-inferior 5-HT3 antagonist. In addition, there are emerging pediatric data informing patient-derived risk factors associated with CINV risk and classification of antineoplastic drugs based on emetogenicity. Several recent pediatric studies have shaped published guidelines for CINV prophylaxis in children.

Single center experience on efficacy and safety of Aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing treatment side-effect that could negatively affect children's quality of life (QoL). Different scoring systems for CINV were applied and different antiemetic drugs were used; however, few studies have been performed in children undergoing chemotherapy with Aprepitant. Herein, we report a pediatric experience on efficacy and safety of Aprepitant as part of triple antiemetic prophylaxis, in a cohort of thirty-two children and adolescents with Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL), treated with moderate/highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC/HEC) regimens in a single Hemato-Oncology Institution. The triple therapy was compared to standard antiemetic therapy in a cohort of twenty-three HL patients (control group). Aprepitant therapy was associated to a significant decrease of chemotherapy-induced vomiting (p = 0.0001), while no impact on the reduction of nausea was observed; these observations were also confirmed by multivariate analysis (p = 0.0040). Aprepitant was well tolerated and the most commonly reported adverse events were neutropenia and hypertransaminasemia. No significant differences on the toxicity were observed between the two compared groups. Our experience on Aprepitant efficacy and safety, associated with feasibility of orally administration, suggests a possible widespread use of the drug to prevent pediatric CINV.

Antiemetic Drug Use in Children: What the Clinician Needs to Know

Vomiting is not only unpleasant for both children and families, but can lead to frequent hospital admission. The persistent vomiting hampers oral intake and increases the risk of dehydration, so the proper use of antiemetic drugs can be useful. The pharmacological treatment of vomiting in children remains a challenge for the pediatrician because several antiemetics are prescribed as "off-label," outside their authorized drug label. Domperidone and ondansetron are the most commonly known antiemetic drugs. A single oral dose of ondansetron has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent vomiting, the need for intravenous fluids, and hospital admissions in children with acute gastroenteritis. There is enough evidence to support ondansetron administration in children, so the clinical use can be defined as "off-label/on evidence." This review aims to provide an overview of therapeutic use, safety, and main pharmacological properties of antiemetic drugs in children. A comprehensive search of published literature using the PubMed MEDLINE database was carried out to identify all articles published in English from 1998 to February 2018. At present time, the "off-label/on-evidence" use of some antiemetics could improve the success rate of oral rehydration therapy in pediatric emergency settings and to change the management of vomiting with the prevention of the complications.

Intravenous fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Fosaprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, approved for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The data on the use of fosaprepitant in children are limited and therefore we conducted a phase III randomized controlled trial.

PROCEDURE

Children aged 1-12 years scheduled to receive moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomly assigned to arm-A (fosaprepitant) or arm-B (placebo). Children recruited to arm-A received intravenous ondansetron plus dexamethasone followed by fosaprepitant infusion. Children recruited to arm-B received the same drugs as those given to children in arm-A, except that fosaprepitant was substituted with a placebo. Ondansetron and dexamethasone were continued for 48 hours after completion of chemotherapy. The primary end point of the study was to determine the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting, no retching, and no use of rescue medication, during the 24-120 hours (delayed phase) after administration of the last dose of chemotherapy. Secondary end points were the proportion of patients who achieved a CR during the acute phase (0-24 hours) and overall after administration of the last dose of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

One-hundred-sixty-three patients were analyzed (81 in the fosaprepitant arm and 82 in the placebo arm). CR rates were significantly higher in the fosaprepitant arm compared to those in the placebo arm during the acute phase (86% vs 60%, P < 0.001), delayed phase (79% vs 51%, P < 0.001), and overall phase (70% vs 41%, P < 0.001). Three (4%) patients in the fosaprepitant arm and sixteen (20%) in the placebo arm required rescue anti-emetics (P = 0.0017).

CONCLUSION

Addition of fosaprepitant to ondansetron and dexamethasone improved chemotherapy-induced vomiting control in children treated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Evaluation of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Single-dose i.v. fosaprepitant has been approved as an alternative to 3 day oral aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Because fosaprepitant has shown similar efficacy to aprepitant in adult patients only, this study compared the efficacy and safety of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Children younger than 18 years who received aprepitant or fosaprepitant to manage CINV between January 2015 and March 2018 at the National Cancer Center Hospital (Tokyo) were recruited to this study. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting/rescue medication) between 0 and 120 h after the start of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints were safety based on the frequency of severe adverse events, and evaluation of patient characteristics as risk factors (effect of age and sex).

RESULTS

A total of 125 chemotherapy cycles were evaluated. In the aprepitant group, CR was observed in 36 of 80 treatment cycles (45.0%), whereas in the fosaprepitant group, it was observed in 19 of 45 cycles (42.2%; P = 0.852). No treatment-related severe adverse events were observed in either group. The number of non-CR was greater than that of CR in patients aged 6-14 years. The difference in CR rate between male and female patients was not statistically significant (47.1% vs 40.0%, respectively; P = 0.471).

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant were safely used and may be equally useful for pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. CR rate may be associated with patient age.

Relative bioavailability of an extemporaneously prepared aprepitant oral suspension in healthy adults

Purpose

Use of aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in patients unable to swallow capsules is hindered by the lack of a commercially available oral liquid formulation in many jurisdictions. A stable oral suspension can be extemporaneously prepared using commercially available capsules. We aimed to determine the bioavailability of this aprepitant suspension relative to the capsule.

Methods

This two-period crossover study enrolled 17 healthy adult volunteers. Volunteers received a single 125 mg aprepitant dose during each study period. Order of formulation presentation (capsule vs suspension first) was randomized. Thirteen blood samples were collected over a 48-h period. Aprepitant plasma concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy. Relative bioavailability was defined as the geometric least squares mean ratio for area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity of the aprepitant suspension versus the capsule. Bioequivalence, defined as per Health Canada guidelines, was assessed as a secondary aim.

Results

Relative bioavailability of the aprepitant suspension was 82.3% (90% CI: 69.09-98.00%). Bioequivalence was not established: geometric least squares mean ratios (suspension/capsule) for AUC time zero to 48 h and maximum concentration were 87.8% (90% CI: 75.48–102.16%) and 86.1% (90% CI: 75.59–98.16%), respectively. No serious adverse events were observed.

Conclusions

With a relative bioavailability of 82.3%, the extemporaneous aprepitant oral suspension was well-absorbed relative to the capsule. Though not bioequivalent to the oral capsule, the clinical use of this aprepitant oral suspension in adult and pediatric patients unable to swallow capsules is likely to be effective and safe.

Evaluation of the Use of Fosaprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients

A neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist is recommended with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Data for fosaprepitant use in pediatric patients is lacking. A retrospective chart review was conducted using an electronic medical record to characterize the use of fosaprepitant in patients aged 10 months to 18 years at a single institution from August 2015 to January 2017. Thirty-nine patients received fosaprepitant 4 mg/kg (maximum, 150 mg) for prevention of CINV, and 35 were included in the analysis. Ten patients 5 years of age or older who received fosaprepitant after October 2016 were eligible for a follow-up phone call to assess control of delayed CINV. Complete control of emesis was observed in 89% of patients during the acute phase, 63% during the delayed phase, and 60% overall. Overall incidence of nausea as documented in the medical record was 43%. Among the 10 patients who completed follow-up phone calls, 30% experienced emesis and 50% experienced nausea after discharge. Fosaprepitant may be safe and effective in the prevention of CINV in pediatric patients as young as 10 months of age.

Adverse events associated with aprepitant pediatric bone cancer patients

An eight-year long case series follow-up study with pediatric bone cancer patients was conducted to compare the occurrence of adverse events associated with aprepitant with official sources of drug information (manufacturer's leaflet, clinical trials, and European Medicines Agency leaflet). All patients admitted were analyzed, representing 192 aprepitant cycles. Anorexia, febrile neutropenia, and headache were observed in frequencies over 43.8 per 100 patients, which was higher than previous estimates. Adverse events were classified as probable or possible, by using Naranjo score. The increased rates of adverse events, especially on the risk febrile neutropenia, warrant further safety studies on this population.

Guideline for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients: A focused update

This update of the 2013 clinical practice guideline provides clinicians with guidance regarding the use of aprepitant and palonosetron for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children. The recommendations were based on three systematic reviews. Substantive changes were made to the guideline recommendations including the inclusion of palonosetron to the 5-HT₃ antagonists recommended for children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and the recommendation of aprepitant for children 6 months of age or older receiving HEC. To optimize CINV control in children, future work must focus on closing critical research gaps.

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Purpose

To update the ASCO guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

Methods

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature for the period of November 2009 to June 2016.

Results

Forty-one publications were included in this systematic review. A phase III randomized controlled trial demonstrated that adding olanzapine to antiemetic prophylaxis reduces the likelihood of nausea among adult patients who are treated with high emetic risk antineoplastic agents. Randomized controlled trials also support an expanded role for neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in patients who are treated with chemotherapy.

Recommendation

Key updates include the addition of olanzapine to antiemetic regimens for adults who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents or who experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting; a recommendation to administer dexamethasone on day 1 only for adults who receive anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy; and the addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for adults who receive carboplatin area under the curve ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute or high-dose chemotherapy, and for pediatric patients who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents. For radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, adjustments were made to anatomic regions, risk levels, and antiemetic administration schedules. Rescue therapy alone is now recommended for low-emetic-risk radiation therapy. The Expert Panel reiterated the importance of using the most effective antiemetic regimens that are appropriate for antineoplastic agents or radiotherapy being administered. Such regimens should be used with initial treatment, rather than first assessing the patient’s emetic response with less-effective treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life and is perceived by patients as a major adverse effect of the treatment. This review summarizes the safety and efficacy of current antiemetic agents for the prevention of CINV in children. Information on antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV in children was obtained from a literature review of current peer-reviewed articles and recent international guidelines. The literature review and the international antiemetic guidelines provide recommendations for use of specific antiemetics in children based on the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy. 5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists have been safe and effective in the prevention of acute emesis with a few patients experiencing mild headache. No adequate studies have been conducted to date for specific recommendations for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in children. The neurokinin (NK)-₁ receptor antagonist aprepitant has been approved by the US FDA for use in children of a specific age and weight. No studies for the NK₁ receptor antagonists netupitant and rolapitant in children have been conducted. Olanzapine, an antipsychotic, has been shown to be safe and effective in preventing nausea and emesis in adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Its use in children has been limited to children with poor control of CINV; more studies are necessary in this population. In conclusion, practitioners should follow international antiemetic guidelines to provide patients with the specific antiemetics in the recommended dose for the highest possible quality of care.

Aprepitant in pediatric patients using moderate and highly emetogenic protocols: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To review the efficacy and safety of aprepitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone (triple therapy) in children and adolescents on moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Scielo, Lilacs, Cochrane and congress abstracts published until September 2016 were used as data sources. Two reviewers independently selected manuscripts and extracted data. A third reviewer solved discrepancies in study selection and data extraction. The primary outcome was overall complete response (no vomiting from 0 to 120 h). Secondary outcomes were: response in acute phase, delayed phase and reported toxicities. Each study was considered a unit of analysis. Summarized relative risks were recalculated based on reported data. All meta-analyses used a random-effects model and heterogeneity was reported using the I2 method.

RESULTS

From 1004 studies, we screened 288 titles and abstracts and included three trials for data extraction. The population comprised 451 patients. Most patients were males, ranging from 6 months to 19 years of age, and weighing from 6 to 134 kg. Bone cancer was the most incident (≥50%) neoplasm, followed by rhabdomyosarcoma and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Triple therapy was associated with a reduced risk of developing chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) (RR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.34-0.67). There were no differences in incidence of febrile neutropenia between groups (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.66-1.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Triple therapy decreased CIV risk, without increasing the occurrence of febrile neutropenia. However, this review could not address which subpopulations would most benefit from using this strategy. Future studies should focus on assessing risk factors for nausea and vomiting, as many patients did not achieve a complete antiemetic response.

Efficacy and Safety of Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Can addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs) be considered as an ideal strategy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)? Researchers differ on this question.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of NK1-RAs in preventing CINV. The primary end point was complete response (CR) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases after chemotherapy. Subgroup analyses evaluated the types of NK1-RAs, routines of administration, types of malignancies, regimens used in combination with NK1-RAs, and age of patients included in the studies. The incidences of different types of adverse events were also extracted to estimate the safety of NK1-RAs.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs involving 13,923 patients were identified. The CR rate of patients receiving NK-RAs was significantly higher than patients in the control groups during overall phase (70.8% vs 56.0%, <0.001), acute phase (85.1% vs 79.6%, <0.001), and delayed phase (71.4% vs 58.2%, <0.001). There were three studies including patients of children or adolescents, the CR rate was also significantly higher in the treatment group (overall phase: OR=2.807, <0.001; acute phase: OR=2.863, P =0.012; delayed phase: OR=2.417, <0.001). For all the other outcomes, patients in the NK1-RAs groups showed improvements compared to the control groups (incidence of nausea: 45.2% vs 45.9%, <0.001; occurrence of vomiting: 22.6% vs 38.9%, <0.001; usage of rescue drugs: 23.5% vs 34.1%, <0.001). The pooled side effects from NK1-RAs did not significantly differ from previous reports and the toxicity rates in patients less than eighteen years old also did not diff between the two groups (P=0.497). However, we found that constipation and insomnia were more common in the patients of control groups, whereas diarrhea and hiccups were more frequently detected in patients receiving NK1-RAs.

CONCLUSIONS

NK1-RAs improved the CR rate of CINV. They are effective for both adults and children. The use of NK1-RAs might be associated with the appearance of diarrhea and hiccups, while decreasing the possibility of constipation and insomnia.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children

PURPOSE

To update the 2009 recommendations for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced emesis in children.

METHODS

We updated the original systematic literature search. Randomized studies were included in the evidence to support this guideline if they were primary studies fully published in full text in English or French; included only children less than 18 years old or, for mixed studies of adults and children, reported the pediatric results separately or the median or mean age was no more than 13 years; evaluated acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis; provided sufficient information to permit determination of the emetogenicity of the antineoplastic therapy administered or the study investigators stated the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy administered; included an implicit or explicit definition of complete acute CINV response; described the antiemetic regimen in full; and reported the complete acute CINV response rate as a proportion.

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized studies, including eight published since 2009, met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 antagonist (granisetron or ondansetron or palonosetron or tropisetron) ± dexamethasone ± aprepitant is recommended for children receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. For children receiving chemotherapy of low emetogenicity, a 5-HT3 antagonist is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of several randomized trials were used to update recommendations for the prevention of acute CINV. However, significant research gaps remain and must be addressed before CINV control in children can be optimized.