Ondansetron for nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic cancer chemotherapy

RETRACTED: Pluronic® F127 stabilized reduced graphene oxide hydrogel for transdermal delivery of ondansetron: Ex vivo and animal studies

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors. Significant similarities were noticed post-publication between this article and an article submitted to the journal on the same day, by an apparently unrelated research group: Qiang Li, Fangmei Li, Xixi Qi, Fuqiao Wei, Hongxiao Chen and Ting Wang, Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 195 (2020) 111246 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.111246. Moreover, the authors did not respond to the journal request to comment on these similarities and to provide the raw data, and the Editors decided to retract the article. One of the conditions of submission of a paper for publication is that authors declare explicitly that their work is original and genuine. As such this article represents a severe abuse of the scientific publishing system. The scientific community takes a very strong view on this matter and apologies are offered to readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process.

Bioequivalence of ondansetron oral soluble film 8 mg (ZUPLENZ) and ondansetron orally disintegrating tablets 8 mg (ZOFRAN) in healthy adults

Oral formulations of ondansetron are used to prevent nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery. An oral soluble film formulation of ondansetron (OND OSF) was developed using MonoSol Rx's proprietary PharmFilm technology and was formulated to dissolve rapidly on the tongue, without the need for water. This product provides an oral antiemetic treatment option for patients who experience difficulty swallowing. The purpose of this study was to compare the bioequivalence of OND OSF 8 mg (ZUPLENZ, Monosol Rx, Warren, NJ) with ondansetron orally disintegrating tablets (OND ODT) 8 mg (ZOFRAN, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park). In 3 individual open-label, randomized studies, healthy adult subjects received a single dose of OND OSF 8 mg and a single dose of OND ODT 8 mg, under fasted conditions (study 1, n = 48), fed conditions (study 2, n = 48), and fasted with and without water (study 3, n = 18). Each dosing period was followed by a 3- or 7-day washout period. Ondansetron pharmacokinetics were assessed predose to 24 hours postdose for the single 8-mg doses of OND OSF and OND ODT. All analyses were conducted on natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters for OND OSF and OND ODT. Under both fasted and fed conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the comparisons of OND OSF and OND ODT plasma ondansetron area under the curve from time 0 to the last measured concentration (AUC0-t), area under the concentration vs. time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞), and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were within the 80%-125% range, indicating bioequivalence between the formulations. With features designed to make it portable and easy to take, OND OSF 8 mg provides an alternative treatment option, particularly for patients with dysphagia and others who find it difficult to take oral tablets.

Equipoise: asking the right questions for clinical trial design

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are central to evidence-based clinical and health-policy decisions. However, RCTs highlight the tension between the therapeutic obligations of the physician and the scientific obligations of the investigator. Clinical equipoise, defined as honest professional disagreement among expert clinicians about the preferred treatment, is often cited as the solution to this RCT dilemma. Nevertheless, there are numerous practical and conceptual problems with the notion of equipoise. These problems include its mistaken imposition of therapeutic norms on the scientific enterprise of research, the difficulty of knowing when a state of equipoise exists, the susceptibility of expert judgment to bias and weak evidence, and its inability to support evidence necessary for health-policy decisions. An alternate approach to risk-benefit assessment that is congruent with the scientific purpose of RCTs can better guide ethical evaluation of these trials, as discussed in this Perspective.

[Management of chemotherapy-induced emesis: what is the standard after 20 years of clinical research]

BACKGROUND

The knowledge of the importance, the physiopathological mechanisms, and the management of the chemotherapy-induced emesis has increased exponentially during the last 20 years. High-dosage metoclopramide (MCP) therapy has been introduced in the eighties and serotonine type-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) have been used since the late eighties and early nineties. Due to both classes of substances the results of the antiemetic therapies have improved drastically. After 20 years of intensive clinical research it seems to be appropriate to come to an intermediate conclusion.

METHOD

With the aid of an overview and a new analysis of the literature published on this topic so far, the current state of research is shown (including the fields in which further improvement will be necessary), and suggestions are made, wherever it seemed possible, to attain the "gold standard" in antiemetic therapy.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In connection with all highly or very highly emetogenic chemotherapies, an antiemetic prophylaxis should be initiated on the day of therapy, especially when using platinum or most of the cyclophosphamide-based regimes for cancer treatment. The recommended prophylaxis consists of a combination of 5-HT(3) antagonists with a corticosteroid. To combat the so-called delayed emesis on the days following therapy, all patients should undergo an oral corticoid therapy, possibly in combination with MCP (especially platinum-therapy patients), less frequently with 5-HT(3) antagonists. With these means of prophylaxis emesis can be prevented/avoided completely in most patients, and nausea can at least be reduced. It is sufficient to administer a single dose of 5-HT(3) antagonists prior to chemotherapy. For ondansetron and granisetron, the best documented substances within this class of drugs, 8 mg (ondansteron) and 3 mg (granisetron) are considered standard dosages. Among the corticoids, most data have been accumulated for dexamethasone. A standard dose of 10 to 20 mg can be administered prior to chemotherapy. Right after and especially on the days following chemotherapy higher dosages seem to be indicated.

PROSPECT

Further therapy improvements, especially concerning emesis and nausea on the days following chemotherapy, are necessary and are currently object of clinical research.

Stratified administration of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (setrons) for chemotherapy-induced emesis. Economic implications

The serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or 'setrons' have become the standard of care for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis (CIE) and are first-line therapy for acute CIE in healthcare organisations worldwide. However, their superior efficacy versus standard antiemetics comes at a significant cost. Currently, 3 agents are available in the US: ondansetron, granisetron and dolasetron. The most important treatment-related factor contributing to CIE is the emetogenicity of chemotherapy. The ability to customise, or stratify, the setron dose to match the emetogenic challenge of the chemotherapy administered has potential benefits, both clinically and economically. In adults, there is an appreciable amount of clinical literature addressing stratified administration; however, the amount of 'hard' economic data is rather limited. Intuitively, if clinical outcomes are equivalent, then stratified administration should be associated with economic benefits, as it generally promotes the use of doses lower than those recommended by the manufacturer. The literature strongly substantiates this for ondansetron, but is not as favourable for granisetron or dolasetron. As the rationale and justification for dose stratification is contained in the clinical literature, the authors have reviewed the pertinent literature supporting the clinical and economic benefits of dose stratification in both adult and paediatric patients. The authors also provide a discussion of various additional strategies that can be employed to ensure the appropriate and cost-effective use of setrons in real-world practice settings. These strategies include the use of lower doses than recommended by manufacturers, use for acute versus delayed phase emesis, enhancing the antiemetic efficacy by the addition of a corticosteroid, use of oral versus injectable formulations (when appropriate) and the implementation and use of local, national and international drug use guidelines.

Efficacy and tolerability of oral ondansetron versus prochlorperazine in the prevention of emesis associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy and maintenance of health-related quality of life

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of oral ondansetron (8 mg twice daily [BID] for up to 3 days) with those of phenothiazine prochlorperazine (10 mg BID for up to 3 days) in 133 cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. In addition, the study evaluated the impact of these treatments on patients' health-related quality of life, measured with both the Functional Living Index-Cancer and the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaires. The first dose of study drug was administered 30 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy. Patients received a rescue antiemetic at their request or if the investigator deemed it necessary. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of patients with no emetic episodes over the 3-day study period: 60% in the ondansetron group compared with 21% in the prochlorperazine group. Twenty-five percent of ondansetron-treated patients compared with 68% of prochlorperazine-treated patients experienced three or more emetic episodes, rescue medication use, or withdrawal from the study due to emesis or adverse events. Among patients with at least one emetic episode, the mean time to emesis was significantly longer (13 hours and 37 minutes) in the ondansetron group compared with the prochlorperazine group (9 hours and 30 minutes). Nausea and appetite scores did not differ significantly between groups. The score on the vomiting subscale of the Functional Living Index-Emesis was significantly more favorable in the ondansetron group compared with the prochlorperazine group, indicating better maintenance of health-related quality of life in ondansetron-treated patients. Both treatments were well tolerated. The most common potentially drug-related adverse event was headache, which occurred in significantly more (16%) ondansetron-treated patients compared with prochlorperazine-treated patients (3%). The results of this study demonstrate that oral ondansetron 8 mg BID for up to 3 days is more effective than prochlorperazine 10 mg BID for up to 3 days in the prevention of emesis associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.