Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-Related Adverse Drug Reaction and Associated Factors Among Hospitalized Paediatric Cancer Patients at Hospitals in North-West Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

One of the prevalent treatment modalities for cancer is chemotherapy. Adverse drug reactions, however, are becoming the world's major public health problem. More than half (54.5 percent) of cancer patients need hospitalization for further management, in addition to the increased health-care costs of treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate adverse drug reactions associated with chemotherapy and related factors in hospitalized paediatric cancer patients in Ethiopia's north-west hospitals.

METHODS

From July 1, 2017, to August 13, 2019, a cross-sectional study was carried out among 311 paediatric cancer patients at Gondar Comprehensive University, Specialized Hospital and Felegehiwot referral hospital. The data were entered into Epi Info version 7 and exported for further analysis to Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS). To identify associated variables, both the bi-variate and multi-variate logistic regression analyses were computed. Variables with a P-value of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant in the multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The overall adverse drug reaction in this study was 41.5 percent ((95% CI: 35.8-47.2%)). Patients who received concomitant medications were at higher risk of experiencing adverse drug reactions (AOR: 2.60 (95% CI: 1.54-4.40)), according to the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Similarly, there was a risk of developing adverse drug reactions in patients taking four or more chemotherapy agents (AOR: 2.67 (95% CI: 1.52-4.68)). In addition, regimens based on etoposide (AOR: 1.99 (95% CI: 0.93-4.27)), mercaptopurine (AOR: 3.91 (95% CI: 1.06-14.46)) and doxorubicin (AOR: 2.32 (95% CI: 1.30-4.15)) were at higher risk for adverse drug reactions in patients.

CONCLUSION

Adverse drug reactions developed in a significant proportion of the study patients (2 out of 5 patients). Therefore, for pediatric cancer patients on concomitant medications and for patients on etoposide, mercaptopurine and doxorubicin drug regimens, efficient prevention and management of adverse drug reactions should be sought.

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Current antiemetic regimens are less effective in children than in adults. Fosaprepitant was recently approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children aged six months and older.

PROCEDURE

The pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) profile, safety, and tolerability of a single intravenous dose of fosaprepitant administered concomitantly with ondansetron with/without dexamethasone were evaluated in pediatric patients with cancer receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. PK/PD from three doses of fosaprepitant (3.0, 1.2, and 0.4 mg/kg, up to 150, 60, and 20 mg, respectively) were compared with placebo in 2- to 17-year-old subjects; an open-label amendment evaluated a fourth dose (5.0 mg/kg, up to 150 mg) in those under 12 years old. Historical adult PK data were used for comparison. Efficacy was measured as an exploratory endpoint.

RESULTS

PK data were evaluable for 167/234 subjects who completed cycle one. Aprepitant exposures were dose proportional; adolescents (12 to 17 years) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg had exposures similar to adults at the same dose. Higher weight-normalized doses (5 mg/kg) were necessary for children aged < 12 years to achieve comparable adult exposures. The adverse event profile was typical of cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16 (6.8%) subjects, with hiccups being most common (n = 5; 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous fosaprepitant was well tolerated by pediatric subjects with cancer, and dose-proportional exposures were observed. Subjects < 12 years old required higher doses to achieve comparable adult exposures.

Comparative effectiveness of pediatric integrative medicine as an adjunct to usual care for pediatric inpatients of a North American tertiary care centre: A study protocol for a pragmatic cluster controlled trial

Background

Some pediatric tertiary care centres in North America supplement conventional care with complementary therapies, together known as pediatric integrative medicine (PIM). Evidence to support the safety and efficacy of PIM is emerging, but the cost-effectiveness of an inpatient PIM service has yet to be assessed.

Methods/Design

This study is a pragmatic cluster controlled clinical trial. Usual care will be compared to usual care augmented with PIM in three pediatric divisions; oncology, general medicine, and cardiology at one large urban tertiary care Canadian Children's Hospital. The primary outcome of the feasibility study is enrolment; the primary outcome of the main study is cost-effectiveness. Other secondary outcomes include the prevalence and severity of key symptoms (i.e. pain, nausea/vomiting and anxiety), efficacy of PIM interventions, patient safety, and parent satisfaction.

Discussion

This trial will be the first to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, both clinical and cost, of a PIM inpatient service. The evidence from this study will be useful to families, clinicians and decision makers, and will describe the clinical and economic value of PIM services for pediatric patients admitted to hospital.

Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are among the most frequently experienced toxic side-effects associated with chemotherapy. Although nausea and vomiting can result from surgery or radiotherapy, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is potentially the most severe and most distressing. Estimates regarding the incidence of CINV vary depending on the treatment administered and individual patient characteristics.The impact of CINV on quality of life (QoL) and daily activities is considerable. Pharmacological treatments are considered routine for CINV. Clinical guidelines now recommend that patients receiving moderate emetic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens be preferentially treated with palonosetron, the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, in combination with dexamethasone. In addition, it has shown that single-dose fosaprepitant is equivalent to the standard 3-day aprepitant regimen (the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist). Despite these advances in antiemetic management, approximately 50% of patients receiving chemotherapy still experience nausea and/or vomiting. Further improvements are still desirable, particularly in the prevention and treatment of delayed CINV. Non-pharmacological interventions can be possible adjuncts to standard anti-emetic therapy. Using new technologies to collect patient-reported outcomes may improve the accuracy of assessment, provide a better picture of the patient's experience of these symptoms, and provide a means to simultaneously monitor symptoms, educate patients, and collect longitudinal data.

Open-label observational study to assess the efficacy and safety of aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Indian patients receiving chemotherapy with highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens

Context:

Currently, there is limited data on the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Indian population with aprepitant containing regimens.

Aims:

The aim was to assess the Efficacy and Safety of Aprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) regimens.

Settings and Design:

Investigator initiated, multicentric, open-label, prospective, noncomparative, observational trial.

Subjects and Methods:

Triple drug regimen with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasaone administration was assessed for the prevention of CINV during acute, delayed, and the overall phase (OP) for HEC/MEC Regimens. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) and the key secondary endpoint was the complete control (CC; no emesis, no rescue medication and no more than mild nausea) during the OP.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Perprotocol efficacy was analyzed for the first cycle with results represented in terms of CR/CC rates using descriptive statistics.

Results:

Seventy-five patients were included in the study with median age of 49.7 years and 89.7% being females. The CR rate (OP) for patients administered HEC or MEC regimens during the first cycle were 92% and 90.9%, respectively. Similarly, the CC rates (OP) were 75% and 90% for these regimens, respectively. 7 (9.2%) patients reported adverse drug reactions that were mild and transient with no reports of any serious adverse events.

Conclusions:

Use of aprepitant containing regimen for patients receiving HEC/MEC regimen resulted in significantly high CR and CC response rates, which further consolidate its potential role to improve patient quality of life and compliance to disease management.

Comparison of granisetron plus dexamethasone versus an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in children

Background:

Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most disturbing side-effects in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess whether the addition of an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine to granisetron plus dexamethasone combination could ameliorate CINV in this study.

Patients and Methods:

A total of 23 children aged between 1 and 16 years to receive cisplatin containing chemotherapy in our clinic were included in this study from April 2007 to April 2008. 76 cycles in 23 patients were randomly assigned to receive either antiemetic regimen 1 or antiemetic regimen 2. Antiemetic regimen 1 containing granisetron 0, 04 mg/kg plus dexamethasone 0, 2 mg/kg were given in 45 chemotherapy cycles. In 31 cycles, an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam 0, 04 mg/kg, diphenhyramine 2, 5 mg/-kg in addition to granisetron plus dexamethasone was given. Number of vomiting, severity of nausea, the use of rescue therapy and adverse events were assessed between day 1 and day 5.

Results:

Complete response for the acute phase was observed 38/45 (84, 4%) cycles in regimen 1 as compared with 28/31 (90, 3%) in regimen 2, antiemetic cocktail regimen (P > 0.05). Complete response for delayed emesis after 24 h of the beginning of chemotherapy was observed in 29/45 (64, 4 %) in regimen 1 and 16/31 (51, 6%) in regimen 2. Antiemetic cocktail was not superior to the granisetron plus dexamethasone combination in controlling emesis in acute and delayed phase. Furthermore, patients receiving antiemetic regimen 2 were noted significantly more side effects.

Conclusion:

Our data showed that antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine was not better in controlling acute and delayed emesis. A slightly more toxicity with additional drugs was also observed.

Recent advances in pharmacotherapy of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting remain among the most feared side effects of chemotherapy for cancer patients. Significant progress has been made in the last 15 years in developing more effective and better-tolerated measures to minimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). During the 1990s, the selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists were first introduced for the treatment of CINV, and resulted in more effective and better tolerated treatment of CINV. Despite recent progress, however, a significant number of patients still develop CINV, particularly during the 2-5-day period (delayed emesis) following chemotherapy. There is evidence that this may be an underappreciated problem on the part of some caregivers. Recently, two new antiemetics, aprepitant, the first member of the neurokinin-1 antagonists, and palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist, received regulatory approval in the U.S. Both represent useful additions to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of CINV.

A retrospective review of antiemetic use for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric oncology patients at a tertiary care center

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are the most dreaded and distressing side effects for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment. These side effects have a significant impact on the patients’ quality of life and can interfere with their ability to receive intensive chemotherapy regimens. With the recent advances in antiemetic pharmacotherapy and supportive care, the current treatments for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, when used appropriately, have become highly effective in mitigating these adverse effects.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current practice involving antiemetic treatment in newly diagnosed pediatric oncology patients at our center.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of newly diagnosed pediatric oncology patients who were less than 14 years of age receiving their first cycle of inpatient chemotherapy. The data abstracted included the following: age, gender, type of cancer, chemotherapy regimen, emetogenic risk and level, prescribed prophylactic antiemetic regimen, incidence of breakthrough emesis, and breakthrough antiemetic medications used. Emetogenic risk was classified based on published guidelines into low, moderate, or high emetogenic chemotherapy, and a scoring system to determine the emetogenic level of combined chemotherapy agents was followed to monitor the efficacy of the antiemetic regimens. Clinical effectiveness was assessed based on breakthrough emesis.

Results

A total of 49 patients were eligible for the study. High emetogenic chemotherapy was administered in 28/49 (57.1%) and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy was administered in 21/49 (42.9%) patients. Only 10/49 (20.4%) received appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis, whereas 39/49 (79.6%) received inadequate antiemetic prophylaxis; 14/49 (28.6%) patients experienced breakthrough emesis. Breakthrough emesis occurred in 11/28 (39.3%) patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy and 3/21 (14.3%) patients receiving moderate emetogenic chemotherapy. The use of an inadequate antiemetic regimen was found in 14/14 (100%) patients with breakthrough emesis. Thus, inadequate prophylaxis resulted in a 35.9% (14/39) risk of breakthrough emesis. This risk was higher in patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy versus those receiving moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (39.3% versus 14.3%).

Conclusion

Inadequate antiemetic prophylaxis is associated with a high risk of breakthrough emesis particularly with high emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Standardizing antiemetic prophylaxis based on emetogenic level could reduce breakthrough emesis and improve the quality of life in pediatric oncology patients.

A New Candidate Supporting Drug, Rikkunshito, for the QOL in Advanced Esophageal Cancer Patients with Chemotherapy Using Docetaxel/5-FU/CDDP

Purpose. Docetaxel/5-FU/CDDP (DFP) therapy is a useful treatment for advanced esophageal cancer. However, adverse reactions such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) interfere often with continuation of the chemotherapy. We investigated the efficacy of rikkunshito (TJ-43) on CINV. Methods. Nineteen patients who were going to undergo DFP therapy were enrolled. They were assigned to the following two groups: a TJ-43-treated group and -nontreated group. The following parameters were compared between the 2 groups: (1) the frequency of symptoms occurred, (2) vomiting, nausea, and anorexia score, and (3) QOL score. Results. The incidence of symptoms was lower in the TJ-43-treated group than that in the control group. The nausea score of the TJ-43-treated group was significantly lower than that of the control group. In the QOL score, the mood score and the ADL score decreased significantly in the control group. Conclusion. We recommend TJ-43 administration in patients undergoing DFP chemotherapy.