Prognostic factors for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting

Gene polymorphisms of TACR1 serve as the potential pharmacogenetic predictors of response to the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist-based antiemetic regimens: a candidate-gene association study in breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

The current candidate gene association study aims to investigate tag SNPs from the TACR1 gene as pharmacogenetic predictors of response to the antiemetic guidelines-recommended, NK-1 receptor antagonist-based, triple antiemetic regimens.

METHODS

A set of eighteen tag SNPs of TACR1 were genotyped in breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (with/without docetaxel) applying real-time PCR-HRMA. Data analysis for 121 ultimately enrolled patients was initiated by defining haplotype blocks using PHASE v.2.1. The association of each tag SNP and haplotype alleles with failure to achieve the defined antiemetic regimen efficacy endpoints was tested using PLINK (v.1.9 and v.1.07, respectively) based on the logistic regression, adjusting for the previously known chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prognostic factors. All reported p-values were corrected using the permutation test (n = 100,000).

RESULTS

Four variants of rs881, rs17010730, rs727156, and rs3755462, as well as haplotypes containing the mentioned variants, were significantly associated with failure to achieve at least one of the defined efficacy endpoints. Variant annotation via in-silico studies revealed that the non-seed sequence variant, rs881, is located in the miRNA (hsa-miR-613) binding site. The other three variants or a variant in complete linkage disequilibrium with them overlap a region of high H3K9ac-promoter-like signature or regions of high enhancer-like signature in the brain or gastrointestinal tissue.

CONCLUSION

Playing an essential role in regulating TACR1 expression, gene polymorphisms of TACR1 serve as the potential pharmacogenetic predictors of response to the NK-1 receptor antagonist-based, triple antiemetic regimens. If clinically approved, modifying the NK-1 receptor antagonist dose leads to better management of CINV in risk-allele carriers.

Analysis of Adverse Events Associated with Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Patients with Gastric and Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) has displayed demonstrable efficacy and manageable toxicity in previously treated patients with advanced gastric and breast cancer, and it has been approved in Japan. However, there is a lack of data on the optimal management in clinical practice. Therefore, we assessed the adverse event (AE) profiles of T-DXd in patients with advanced gastric or breast cancer to provide guidance for appropriate management. This retrospective study was conducted at the Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research. We reviewed the medical records of patients with advanced gastric or breast cancer who received T-DXd between May 2020 and December 2021. AEs occurring within the first three cycles of T-DXd were evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Thirty-six patients were enrolled (gastric: n = 19, breast: n = 17). All 15 males had gastric cancer, whereas 4 and 17 females had gastric and breast cancer, respectively. Interstitial lung disease (ILD) occurred in five patients (14%), but no patients had severe ILD. Gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities, including nausea (61%), vomiting (22%), decreased appetite (33%), and diarrhea (39%), were the most common AEs. The incidence of GI toxicities did not differ by cancer type; however, nausea was significantly more common in females (81 vs. 33%; p < 0.01). T-DXd was safely administered in clinical practice in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or breast cancer. The management of GI toxicities is important in the clinical implementation of T-DXd.

An assessment of the effects of neurokinin1 receptor antagonism against nausea and vomiting: Relative efficacy, sites of action and lessons for future drug development

A broad-spectrum anti-vomiting effect of neurokinin1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RA), shown in pre-clinical animal studies, has been supported by a more limited range of clinical studies in different indications. However, this review suggests that compared with vomiting, the self-reported sensation of nausea is less affected or possibly unaffected (depending on the stimulus) by NK1 receptor antagonism, a common finding for anti-emetics. The stimulus-independent effects of NK1 RAs against vomiting are explicable by actions within the central pattern generator (ventral brainstem) and the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS; dorsal brainstem), with additional effects on vagal afferent activity for certain stimuli (e.g., highly emetogenic chemotherapy). The central pattern generator and NTS neurones are multifunctional so the notable lack of obvious effects of NK1 RAs on other reflexes mediated by the same neurones suggests that their anti-vomiting action is dependent on the activation state of the pathway leading to vomiting. Nausea requires activation of cerebral pathways by projection of information from the NTS. Although NK1 receptors are present in cerebral nuclei implicated in nausea, and imaging studies show very high receptor occupancy at clinically used doses, the variable or limited ability of NK1 RAs to inhibit nausea emphasizes: (i) our inadequate understanding of the mechanisms of nausea; and (ii) that classification of a drug as an anti-emetic may give a false impression of efficacy against nausea vs. vomiting. We discuss the potential mechanisms for the differential efficacy of NK1 RA and the implications for future development of drugs that can effectively treat nausea, an area of unmet clinical need.

Influence of menopause on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in highly emetogenic chemotherapy for breast cancer: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Female sex and younger age are reported risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy, but the underlying mechanism has not been elucidated. The purpose of this study was to clarify the impact of menopause on CINV.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study analyzed data from consecutive patients who received their first cycle of perioperative anthracycline-based chemotherapy for breast cancer between January 2018 and June 2020. The endpoints were association between CINV (vomiting, ≥Grade 2 nausea, complete response [CR] failure) and menopause as well as the association between CINV and follicle-stimulating hormone [FSH]/estradiol [E2].

RESULTS

Data for 639 patients were analyzed. Among these patients, 109 (17.1%) received olanzapine (four antiemetic combinations) and 530 (82.9%) did not (three antiemetic combinations). Premenopausal state (amenorrhea lasting ≥12 months) was significantly associated with ≥Grade 2 nausea and CR failure in univariate analysis but not in multivariate analysis. The premenopausal FSH/E2 group (defined by serum levels; FSH <40 mIU/mL and E2 ≥20 pg/mL) had a significantly higher rate of ≥Grade 2 nausea than the postmenopausal FSH/E2 group (FSH ≥40 mIU/mL and E2 <20 pg/mL) (48.8% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that changes in FSH and E2 due to menopause may affect the severity of nausea and that FSH and E2 (especially FSH) levels might be useful indicators for CINV risk assessment.

A deep learning-based interpretable decision tool for predicting high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients prescribed highly emetogenic chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a risk prediction model for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and identify the variables that have the most significant impact on prediction.

METHODS

Data from Tianjin Medical University General Hospital were collected and subjected to stepwise data preprocessing. Deep learning algorithms, including deep forest, and typical machine learning algorithms such as support vector machine (SVM), categorical boosting (CatBoost), random forest, decision tree, and neural network were used to develop the prediction model. After training the model and conducting hyperparameter optimization (HPO) through cross-validation in the training set, the performance was evaluated using the test set. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP), partial dependence plot (PDP), and Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) techniques were employed to explain the optimal model. Model performance was assessed using AUC, F1 score, accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and Brier score.

RESULTS

The deep forest model exhibited good discrimination, outperforming typical machine learning models, with an AUC of 0.850 (95%CI, 0.780-0.919), an F1 score of 0.757, an accuracy of 0.852, a specificity of 0.863, a sensitivity of 0.784, and a Brier score of 0.082. The top five important features in the model were creatinine clearance (Ccr), age, gender, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, and antiemetic regimen. Among these, Ccr had the most significant predictive value. The risk of CINV decreased with increased Ccr and age, while it was higher in the presence of anticipatory nausea and vomiting, female gender, and non-standard antiemetic regimen.

CONCLUSION

The deep forest model demonstrated good discrimination in predicting the risk of CINV in cancer patients prescribed HEC. Kidney function, as represented by Ccr, played a crucial role in the model's prediction. The clinical application of this predictive tool can help assess individual risks and improve patient care by proactively optimizing the use of antiemetics in cancer patients receiving HEC.

Neural networks involved in nausea in adult humans: A systematic review

Nausea is a common clinical symptom, poorly managed with anti-emetic drugs. To identify potential brain regions which may be therapeutic targets we systematically reviewed brain imaging in subjects reporting nausea. The systematic review followed PRISMA statements with methodological quality (MINORS) and risk of bias (ROBINS-I) assessed. Irrespective of the nauseagenic stimulus the common (but not only) cortical structures activated were the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the anterior insula (AIns) with some evidence for lateralization (Left-IFG, Right-AIns, Right-ACC). Basal ganglia structures (e.g., putamen) were also consistently activated. Inactivation was rarely reported but occurred mainly in the cerebellum and occipital lobe. During nausea, functional connectivity increased, mainly between the posterior and mid- cingulate cortex. Limitations include, a paucity of studies and stimuli, subject demographics, inconsistent definition and measurement of nausea. Structures implicated in nausea are discussed in the context of knowledge of central pathways for interoception, emotion and autonomic control. Comparisons are made between nausea and other aversive sensations as multimodal aversive conscious experiences.

Validation of different personalized risk models of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of fosaprepitant for cancer patients treated with high-dose cisplatin

BACKGROUND

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in cancer patients without prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fosaprepitant-based triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with solid malignant tumors, determine risk factors and externally validate different personalized risk models for CINV.

METHODS

This phase III trial was designed to test the non-inferiority of fosaprepitant toward aprepitant in cancer patients who were to receive the first cycle of single-day cisplatin chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the overall phase (OP) with a non-inferiority margin of 10.0%. Logistic regression models were used to assess the risk factors of CR and no nausea. To validate the personalized risk models, the accuracy of the risk scoring systems was determined by measuring the specificity, sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), while the predictive accuracy of the nomogram was measured using concordance index (C-index).

RESULTS

A total of 720 patients were randomly assigned. CR during the OP in the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that in the aprepitant group (78.1% vs. 77.7%, P = 0.765) with a between-group difference of 0.4% (95% CI, -5.7% to 6.6%). Female sex, higher cisplatin dose (≥ 70 mg/m² ), no history of drinking and larger body surface area (BSA) were significantly associated with nausea. The AUC for the acute and delayed CINV risk indexes was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66-0.71) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.61-0.70), respectively, and the C-index for nomogram CINV prediction was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.54-0.64). Using appropriate cutoff points, the three models could stratify patients with high- or low-risk CINV. No nausea and CR rate were significantly higher in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Fosaprepitant-based triple prophylaxis demonstrated non-inferior control for preventing CINV in patients treated with cisplatin-base chemotherapy. Female cancer patients without a history of alcohol consumption, with larger BSA and received high-dose cisplatin might be more vulnerable to CINV. Three personalized prediction models were well-validated and could be used to optimize antiemetic therapy for individual patients.

Amino Acid Solutions for 177Lu-Oxodotreotide Premedication: A Tolerance Study

Background: The co-infusion of amino acid solutions during peptide receptor radionuclide therapy reduces the tubular reabsorption of 177Lu-oxodotreotide, thus minimizing nephrotoxicity. In our nuclear medicine department, the patients received two different types of amino acid perfusion over time: a commercial solution (CS) containing 10% amino acids, and a 2.5% lysine−arginine (LysArg) hospital preparation, produced by a referral laboratory. The aim of the present study was to analyze the tolerance of the two amino acid solutions. Methods: The patient files were analyzed and double-checked. The study parameters comprised the gender, age, primary tumor site, type of amino acid perfusion, adverse events (AE) and WHO AE grades, antiemetic premedication, creatinine, and serum potassium level. Results: From February 2016 to February 2019, 76 patients were treated, for a total 235 cycles. AEs occurred in 71% of the CS cycles (n = 82/116), versus 18% (n = 21/119) in the LysArg group (p < 0.0001). In the CS group, the AEs were mostly WHO grade 4 (n = 24/82), and mostly grade 1 in the LysArg group (n = 13/21). Poisson regression showed a higher risk of AE overall and of grades 3 and 4 in the females and with CS. The mean creatinine clearance was identical before and after the PRRT cycles, whichever amino acid perfusion was used. Conclusions: The lysine−arginine preparation showed better tolerance than the commercial solution. The change to LysArg reduced the antiemetic premedication from four molecules to one.

Nausea at the start of specialized palliative care and change in nausea after the first weeks of palliative care were associated with cancer site, gender, and type of palliative care service-a nationwide study

PURPOSE

Nausea is a common and distressful symptom among patients in palliative care, but little is known about possible socio-demographic and clinical patient characteristics associated with nausea at the start of palliative care and change after initiation of palliative care. The aim of this study was to investigate whether patient characteristics were associated with nausea at the start of palliative care and with change in nausea during the first weeks of palliative care, respectively.

METHODS

Data was obtained from the nationwide Danish Palliative Care Database. The study included adult cancer patients who were admitted to palliative care and died between June 2016 and December 2020 and reported nausea level at the start of palliative care and possibly 1-4 weeks later. The associations between patient characteristics and nausea at the start of palliative care and change in nausea during palliative care, respectively, were studied using multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

Nausea level was reported at the start of palliative care by 23,751 patients of whom 8037 also reported 1-4 weeks later. Higher nausea levels were found for women, patients with stomach or ovarian cancer, and inpatients at the start of palliative care. In multivariate analyses, cancer site was the variable most strongly associated with nausea change; the smallest nausea reductions were seen for myelomatosis and no reduction was seen for stomach cancer.

CONCLUSION

This study identified subgroups with the highest initial nausea level and those with the least nausea reduction after 1-4 weeks of palliative care. These latter findings should be considered in the initial treatment plan.

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis

Aim

The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens.

Study design and methods

Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1–2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet).

Results

Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users.

Conclusion

In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.

The longitudinal effects of chronotype on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The object of this longitudinal cohort study was to investigate whether chronotype affects the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

The study included a total of 203 breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy using a regimen of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with high emetogenicity. Patients received four cycles of chemotherapy in approximately three months. Patients completed questionnaires including the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire (MCTQ) before the first chemotherapy and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool (MAT) after each of the four chemotherapy sessions. To confirm the effect of chronotype on CINV during the four cycles, we performed statistical analyses using a generalized estimating equation (GEE).

RESULTS

CINV occurred in 108 (53.2%), 112 (55.2%), 102 (50.3%), and 62 (30.5%) patients during four cycles of treatment. In the GEE approach, late and early chronotypes (vs. intermediate chronotype) were associated with an increased risk of CINV (late chronotype: odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.99; p < 0.001, early chronotype: OR, 1.84; CI, 1.25-2.73; p = 0.002), which remained significant even after adjusting for age, BMI, antiemetic treatment, history of nausea and vomiting, anxiety, and sleep quality.

CONCLUSION

Chronotype affected CINV across the four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, suggesting the need to consider chronotype in predicting and managing CINV.

FLOT (a chemotherapy regimen for gastric/esophagogastric junction cancer): to be treated as a highly emetogenic regimen or a moderately emetogenic one? Comparison of the emetogenic potential of FLOT versus FOLFOX and TAC regimens

PURPOSE

The current study aimed at investigating the efficacy of aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen in FLOT (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin + docetaxel) recipients as well as the emetogenic potential of FLOT regimen, through comparison of nausea and vomiting rates in a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, FLOT, and a highly emetogenic chemotherapy recipients.

STUDY

Patients planned to receive one of FLOT, FOLFOX (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin/moderate-emetic risk), or TAC (docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide/high-emetic risk) regimens were recruited. All patients were treated with the same triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant.

RESULTS

A total of 165 chemotherapy-naïve patients (52 FLOT recipients) were eligible to enter the study. At the end of day 5, "complete response" (primary efficacy endpoint) was achieved by 84.6%, 63.5%, and 61.5% of the FLOT-receiving patients in acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. A significant difference was seen among the odds of FLOT recipients and FOLFOX recipients concerning "complete response" achievement in delayed (p = 0.014) and overall (p = 0.017) phases, "no emesis" in delayed (p = 0.018) and overall (p = 0.010) phases, and also "complete protection" in acute (p = 0.023), delayed (p = 0.009), and overall (p = 0.006) phases; however, the difference between the odds of FLOT recipients and TAC recipients, in relation to achieving these endpoints, was insignificant. FLOT group showed significantly faster time-to-antiemetic regimen failure and time-to-first emetic episode in comparison with the FOLFOX group, which was insignificant in comparison with the TAC group.

CONCLUSION

According to the findings, FLOT has to be considered as a high-emetic-risk regimen; provided that, as recommended by the antiemetic guidelines towards better management of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic regimens, executing clinical trials concerning the efficacy of continuing dexamethasone on days 2-4 in aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen schedule is required.

Impact of reducing day 1 dexamethasone dose in anthracycline-containing regimens on acute gastrointestinal symptoms associated with breast cancer treatment

The potential of steroid sparing from day 2 onward is reported in anthracycline-containing regimens for breast cancer treatment. We evaluated whether the reduction of dexamethasone (DEX) dose from 9.9 to 6.6 mg on day 1 is possible in anthracycline-containing treatments. Patients receiving anthracycline-containing regimens were divided into control (9.9 mg DEX on day 1) and reduced (6.6 mg DEX on day 1) groups, and retrospectively evaluated. The complete response (CR) rate and the incidence and severity of nausea, vomiting, anorexia, and fatigue were evaluated. The CR rate in the acute phase (day 1) was 63.1% and 38.1% in the control and reduced groups, respectively, with significant difference (P = 0.01) between the groups. However, no difference was found in the delayed phase (days 2–7). The incidence of anorexia and vomiting during treatment was not statistically different. Severity of nausea tended to, but not statistically, worsen while anorexia significantly worsened in the reduced group. Multivariate analysis suggested that patients < 55 years, with non- or less-alcohol drinking habit (< 5 days/week), and administered reduced-DEX dosage on day 1, have a higher risk of acute nausea development. Thus, reducing day 1 DEX dose in anthracycline-containing regimens is not suitable for acute nausea management.

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.

Psychological predictors of chemotherapy-induced nausea in women with breast cancer: Expectancies and perceived susceptibility

Objective

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea is challenging to predict and treat. Research indicates that pretreatment psychological variables including patients' perceptions of their susceptibility to nausea, expectancies of treatment‐related nausea and nausea history (i.e., motion sickness, morning sickness and baseline levels of nausea) may aid in predicting nausea severity during chemotherapy. However, this research is dated and limited in quantity. We investigated whether psychological variables could improve prediction of nausea severity to inform interventions targeting chemotherapy‐induced nausea.

Methods

In this secondary analysis, a subgroup of women receiving chemotherapy (for the first time) for breast cancer completed pretreatment measures: perceived nausea susceptibility, nausea expectancies, nausea history and baseline nausea. They rated subsequent nausea severity across 4‐days, during treatment and posttreatment in a self‐report diary. Structural Equation Modelling was used to explore associations.

Results

Across the women (N = 481), perceived nausea susceptibility predicted subsequent nausea severity (β = 0.16), but nausea expectancies did not (β = 0.05). Nausea history variables demonstrated small‐moderate associations with perceived susceptibility (β = 0.21–0.32) and negligible‐small associations with nausea expectancies (β = 0.07–0.14).

Conclusion

Perceived nausea susceptibility appears to capture patients' nausea history, to a degree, and is related to nausea severity during treatment. This is an important variable to include in pretreatment prediction of patients at risk of severe nausea.

Retrospective study of the efficacy and safety of metronidazole and vancomycin for Clostridioides difficile infection

INTRODUCTION

According to the Japanese guidelines for the management of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), the first choice is metronidazole (MNZ) for non-severe cases and vancomycin (VCM) for severe cases. However, the appropriateness of this first choice in Japanese patients is unclear. We therefore evaluated the appropriateness of the CDI management guidelines and the incidence of adverse drug reactions.

METHODS

The electronic chart data at Keio University Hospital between January 2012 and June 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The response rate, the relapse rate, and the adverse reaction rate of treatment for CDI using MNZ or VCM were investigated according to the disease severity. Factorial analysis associated with the response, relapse, and adverse reaction was also performed.

RESULTS

In the 352 patients surveyed, no significant difference was observed in the response rate between MNZ and VCM regardless of the severity of CDI. The presence of cancer was a factor related to the persistence of diarrheal symptoms and older age was a risk factor for relapse. MNZ induced nausea significantly more frequently than VCM, and young age and female sex were risk factors for nausea.

CONCLUSION

As no significant difference was observed in the response rate of CDI between MNZ and VCM, the Japanese CDI management guidelines, which recommend MNZ as the first choice, were demonstrated to be appropriate. Attention to nausea was also suggested to be necessary when administering MNZ to young females.

Construction of a Risk Prediction Model of Extended Release Oxycodone Tablet-Induced Nausea and Clarification of Predictive Factors

Nausea is a typical adverse event associated with opioids. In this study, we performed logistic regression analysis with the aim of clarifying the risk factors for nausea induced by extended-release oxycodone (ER-OXY). Furthermore, we constructed a decision tree (DT) model, a typical data mining method, to estimate the risk of oxycodone-induced nausea by combining multiple factors. A retrospective study was conducted on patients who newly received ER-OXY for cancer pain during hospitalization at Hokkaido University Hospital in Japan from April 2015 to March 2018. In logistic regression and DT analyses, the dependent variable was the presence or absence of nausea. Independent variables were the potential risk factors. First, univariate analyses were performed to screen potential factors associated with oxycodone-induced nausea. Then, multivariate and DT analyses were performed using factors with p-values <0.1 in the univariate analysis. Of 267 cases included in this study, nausea was observed in 30.3% (81/267). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only female sex was extracted as an independent factor affecting nausea (odds ratio, 1.98). In the DT analysis, we additionally revealed that an age <50 years was a risk factor for nausea in female patients. Thus, our DT model indicated that the risk of ER-OXY-induced nausea was highest in the subgroup comprising females <50 years of age (66.7%) and lowest in male patients (25.1%). The DT model suggested that the factor of young women may be an increased risk of ER-OXY-induced nausea.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Pathogenesis, Recommendations, and New Trends

The significant physical and emotional effects of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are experienced by cancer patients. Severe symptoms decrease the patient's quality of life and potentially deters further treatment. The five main forms of CINV (i.e., acute, delayed, anticipatory, breakthrough, and refractory) require different treatment regimens, which often include 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids. Despite a significant amount of research and development of antiemetic agents, management of CINV remains a great challenge with many needs waiting to be adequately addressed, such as controlling non-acute CINV, developing appropriate CINV treatment protocols for multiple-day chemotherapy patients, and providing options for those prone to CINV despite treatment. Further research is required to optimize CINV management for these patients.

Risk factors of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study (YCOG1301)

PURPOSE

Although the effectiveness of antiemetic therapy for colorectal cancer chemotherapy has improved with further drug development, some patients still suffer from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) even with only 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. The present study investigated the risk factors of CINV in patients who received chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and clarified which patients need additional neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist.

METHODS

Patients with colorectal cancer receiving moderate-emetic-risk chemotherapy (MEC) were enrolled in this prospective single-arm study with intravenous palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone 9.9 mg before chemotherapy and with paroral dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate for delayed-phase CINV.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients were eligible for this study. The delayed CR rate was 84.9% (152/179). There were no significant differences in any risk factors, but women with a low body mass index (BMI) (a combination of "female sex" and "BMI < 20") showed a significantly lower rate of CC (complete control) (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.17-1.13; p = 0.039), and young patients with a low BMI (combination of "age < 65" and "BMI < 20") showed a significantly lower rate of CR (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.13-0.88; p = 0.022) than the other patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study failed to identify any single risk factors associated with delayed CINV in patients who received chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer. However, combinations of "thin and women" or "young and thin patients" might be possible predictive conditions, thus, candidates for NK1 receptor antagonist administration in MEC. Further investigations are required to develop criteria for the supplementation of NK1 receptor antagonist.

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.

Efficacy of Olanzapine-Triple Antiemetic Regimen in Patients with Gastrointestinal Tumor and High Risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

Dexamethasone combined with 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RA) dual regimen is the standard prophylaxis regimen for patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). However, it has been found in real-world practice that chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains poorly controlled among patients with gastrointestinal tumor, especially in those with high-risk factors for vomiting, such as female, young, and non-alcoholic individuals. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an olanzapine-containing triple regimen in this clinical setting.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of gastrointestinal tumor patients who received mFOLFOX6, XELOX, or FOLFIRI chemotherapy at two institutions. All patients included were female and less than 55 years old, with no history of drinking. The patients were divided into two groups for olanzapine-containing triple therapy (olanzapine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone) and non-olanzapine dual therapy (tropisetron and dexamethasone). The study outcomes were complete response (CR), complete control (CC), nausea control, and quality of life (QoL) by the functional living index-emesis (FLIE) questionnaire.

Results

A total of 93 patients were included in the study (olanzapine: 40; control: 53). The CR rate in the olanzapine group was significantly higher than that in the control group in delayed and overall phase (75.0% vs 54.7%, p=0.044; 70.0% vs 47.2%; p=0.028). The CC rate in the overall phase was also better in the olanzapine group (62.5% vs 39.6%, p=0.029). The control of nausea in the overall phase showed a superior trend in the olanzapine group (p=0.059). The olanzapine group exhibited higher FLIE scores, which demonstrated better QoL. More patients in the olanzapine group exhibited somnolence and dizziness. Conversely, the incidence of insomnia and anorexia in the olanzapine group was lower.

Conclusion

This retrospective study indicates that in gastrointestinal tumor patients with high-risk factors for CINV who were receiving MEC, olanzapine-containing triple antiemetic regimen exhibit better efficacy and QoL as compared to non-olanzapine dual regimen. Further randomized studies are required to confirm these results.

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV): A Short Review on the Role of Netupitant-Palonosetron (NEPA)

Introduction

Antineoplastic drugs may induce several side effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Two neurotransmitters play a central role in mediating the emetic response: serotonin acting on the 5HT3 receptor and the substance P targeting the NK1 receptor. Indeed, a combination of a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) and a NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) together with dexamethasone has been shown to be very effective. In fact, this combination is actually widely used and recommended for CINV prophylaxis for highly emetogenic cisplatin-based adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and carboplatin-based regimens. NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) is the only fixed combination antiemetic available and it is composed by the long-lasting second-generation 5HT3-RA palonosetron and the highly selective NK1-RA netupitant.

Aim

The aims of this short review were to analyze the role of NEPA in CINV prophylaxis and management taking in account the risk factors related to the patient and to the antineoplastic treatment.

Evidence Review

CINV development is not only correlated to the emetogenic potential of the antineoplastic drugs but is also very influenced by the patient characteristics and history, such as gender, age, alcohol intake, nausea during pregnancy and motion sickness. In pivotal and post-registration studies, NEPA has demonstrated to be effective and safe in both highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Conclusion

A proper assessment of both chemotherapy- and patient-related risk factors is paramount to properly evaluate an appropriate prophylaxis of CINV and NEPA by simplifying the therapy, guarantees fully adherence to antiemetic guidelines, and consequently improves the control of CINV, especially in high risk patients.

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.

Patient-Related Risk Factors for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review

Background

Studies have reported that patient-related factors significantly impact the risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV). The objective of this study was to analyze those risk factors of CINV through a systematic literature review.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE to identify articles that addressed patient-related risk factors of CINV through clinical studies.

Results

A total of 49 articles were selected for this study. A total of 28 patient-related risk-factors that significantly impact the risk of CINV were documented. Three factors are demographically related, 17 factors are intrinsic in nature and innate to patient's physiology or influenced by physiology, and eight factors are extrinsic in nature. At least five studies identified seven risk factors with notable summary odds ratio: history of nausea/vomiting (odds ratio: 3.13, 95% CI 2.40–4.07, p < 0.05), female sex (odds ratio: 2.79, 95% CI 2.26–3.44, p < 0.05), expectancy of CINV (odds ratio: 2.61, 95%CI 1.69–4.02, p < 0.05), younger age (odds ratio: 2.59, 95% CI 2.18–3.07, p < 0.05), anxiety (odds ratio: 2.57, 95% CI 1.94–3.40, p < 0.05), history of morning sickness (odds ratio: 1.97, 95% CI 1.46–2.65, p < 0.05), and low alcohol intake (odds ratio: 1.94, 95% CI 1.68–2.24, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Oncologists can use these factors prior to the initiation of a chemotherapy regimen to identify patients at risk for CINV, in order to focus on more comprehensive antiemetic treatment options for those high-risk patients. This may enable better outcomes and avoid complications.

Granisetron plus aprepitant versus granisetron in preventing nausea and vomiting during CHOP or R-CHOP regimen in malignant lymphoma: a retrospective study

Background

Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (CHOP) regimen includes a high dose of prednisolone (100 mg/body), which exhibits an anticancer and antiemetic effect. However, its optimal use for antiemetic therapy has not been established yet. We assessed the efficacy of granisetron plus aprepitant versus granisetron for CHOP or rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen-induced nausea and vomiting in malignant lymphoma.

Methods

This retrospective and observational clinical study included patients who received CHOP or R-CHOP regimen as initiating chemotherapy between July 2010 and March 2016 (N = 39). Patients were assigned to an aprepitant [aprepitant (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on days 2–3) plus granisetron (3 mg); n = 15] or control regimen group [granisetron (3 mg); n = 24]. Complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy during overall phase (0–120 h), was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included the time to first vomiting and using rescue medication and complete protection (CP) defined as no vomiting and no retching and/or no nausea and no rescue therapy. The patient records were investigated, and data were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

CR rate CP rates did not significantly differ between the groups during the observation period (80.0% versus 83.3%, p = 1.000; and 80.0% versus 79.2%, p = 1.000, respectively). Additionally, the time to first vomiting and using rescue medication in did not significantly differ between the groups (p = 0.909).

Conclusions

This study suggests that granisetron alone could be one treatment option in the management of CINV in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving CHOP or R-CHOP regimen.

Visceral osteopathic manipulative treatment reduces patient reported digestive toxicities induced by adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: A randomized controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer patients often benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, a protocol whose effectiveness is accompanied by disabling adverse effects. The aim of this controlled clinical study was to determine the impact of visceral osteopathy on the incidence of nausea/vomiting, constipation and overall quality of life (QoL) in women operated for breast cancer and undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy in Centre Georges François Leclerc, CGFL.

STUDY DESIGN

Ninety-four women operated for a breast cancer stage 1-3, in complete resection and to whom a 3 FEC 100 chemotherapy was prescribed, were randomly allocated to experimental or placebo group. Experimental group underwent a visceral osteopathic technique and placebo group was subjected to a superficial manipulation after each chemotherapy cycle. Rate of grade ≥1 nausea/vomiting or constipation, on the first 3 cycles of FEC 100, were reported. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

RESULTS

Rate of nausea/vomiting episodes of grade ≥1 was high in both experimental and placebo group. Constipation episodes of grade ≥1 were also frequent. No significant differences were found between the two groups concerning the rate of nausea/vomiting (p = 0.569) or constipation (p = 0.204) according to clinician reported side-effects but patient reported impact of constipation and diarrhoea on quality of life was significantly lower in experimental group (p = 0.036 and p = 0.038, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Osteopathy does not reduce the incidence of nausea/vomiting in women operated for breast cancer and undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. In contrast, patient reported digestive quality of life was significantly ameliorated by osteopathy. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02840890.

Efficacy of the combination use of aprepitant and palonosetron for improving nausea in various moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens

BACKGROUND

Nausea is more difficult to control than vomiting in chemotherapy. We therefore analyzed the efficacy of a strong supportive treatment with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone against nausea for various moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

A total of 312 cases treated by palonosetron with or without aprepitant receiving MEC regimens using oxaliplatin, carboplatin, and irinotecan from 2014 to 2016 in our outpatient center for digestive organ cancers, lung cancers, and gynecological cancers were analyzed. Through propensity score matching analysis, cases were divided into 97 cases receiving 2 drugs (palonosetron+dexamethasone) and 97 receiving 3 drugs (aprepitant+palonosetron+dexamethasone). We examined the control rates of nausea for the first two consecutive courses in the both groups. Additionally, risk factors for acute and delayed nausea were analyzed using a multivariate analysis among overall 312 cases.

RESULTS

The control rates of nausea in the two- and the three-drug groups were as follows: acute, 92.8 and 95.9% (p = 0.35); and delayed, 83.5 and 81.4% (p = 0.85), although the control rates of vomiting exceeded 95% in both groups. A multivariate analysis showed that significant risk factors for acute nausea (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) were elevation of serum creatinine (12.601, 2.437-65.157), general fatigue (3.728, 1.098-12.661), and performance status (PS) 2 (19.829, 3.200-122.865). The significant risk factors for delayed nausea were elevation of alanine aminotransferase (2.397, 1.153-4.984), general fatigue (2.652, 1.380-5.097), and PS 2 (5.748, 1.392-23.740).

CONCLUSIONS

The control for nausea in MEC was insufficient even with palonosetron and aprepitant, and we should pay attention to risk factors for preventing nausea.

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.

A History of Drug Discovery for Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting and the Implications for Future Research

The origins of the major classes of current anti-emetics are examined. Serendipity is a recurrent theme in discovery of their anti-emetic properties and repurposing from one indication to another is a continuing trend. Notably, the discoveries have occurred against a background of company mergers and changing anti-emetic requirements. Major drug classes include: (i) Muscarinic receptor antagonists-originated from historical accounts of plant extracts containing atropine and hyoscine with development stimulated by the need to prevent sea-sickness among soldiers during beach landings; (ii) Histamine receptor antagonists-searching for replacements for the anti-malaria drug quinine, in short supply because of wartime shipping blockade, facilitated the discovery of histamine (H1) antagonists (e.g., dimenhydrinate), followed by serendipitous discovery of anti-emetic activity against motion sickness in a patient undergoing treatment for urticaria; (iii) Phenothiazines and dopamine receptor antagonists-investigations of their pharmacology as "sedatives" (e.g., chlorpromazine) implicated dopamine receptors in emesis, leading to development of selective dopamine (D2) receptor antagonists (e.g., domperidone with poor ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier) as anti-emetics in chemotherapy and surgery; (iv) Metoclopramide and selective 5-hydroxytryptamine3(5-HT3) receptor antagonists-metoclopramide was initially assumed to act only via D2 receptor antagonism but subsequently its gastric motility stimulant effect (proposed to contribute to the anti-emetic action) was shown to be due to 5-hydroxytryptamine4 receptor agonism. Pre-clinical studies showed that anti-emetic efficacy against the newly-introduced, highly emetic, chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin was due to antagonism at 5-HT3 receptors. The latter led to identification of selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (e.g., granisetron), a major breakthrough in treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis; (v) Neurokinin1receptor antagonists-antagonists of the actions of substance P were developed as analgesics but pre-clinical studies identified broad-spectrum anti-emetic effects; clinical studies showed particular efficacy in the delayed phase of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Finally, the repurposing of different drugs for treatment of nausea and vomiting is examined, particularly during palliative care, and also the challenges in identifying novel anti-emetic drugs, particularly for treatment of nausea as compared to vomiting. We consider the lessons from the past for the future and ask why there has not been a major breakthrough in the last 20 years.

[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.

Guidelines versus individualized care for the management of CINV

Numerous groups have published guidelines for the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The current management of CINV, however, remains suboptimal, due in part to poor adherence to existing antiemetic guidelines. Challenges in clinical trial design have also slowed progress and complicated the selection of optimal antiemetic therapy. In addition, patient-specific characteristics and factors are not included in current CINV guidelines and are an important contributor to an individual’s risk for nausea and vomiting. CINV risk prediction algorithms have now emerged and provide the opportunity to individualize antiemetic prophylaxis. Further studies are underway to examine the precise role for risk model-guided antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with cancer.

Efficacy of aprepitant for CHOP chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting, and anorexia

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aprepitant in addition to 5-HT3 receptor antagonist is useful for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and anorexia in patients receiving CHOP therapy, and to evaluate the relationship between in vivo kinetics of plasma substance P and these adverse events. Patients with malignant lymphoma who received CHOP chemotherapy or THP (THP-ADR)-COP therapy were investigated for CINV and anorexia for 5 days after the start of chemotherapy. With the first course of chemotherapy, all patients received only granisetron on day1 as an antiemetic. Patients who experienced nausea, vomiting, or anorexia exceeding grade 1 in the first course received aprepitant for 3 days in addition to granisetron with the second course of CHOP chemotherapy. Plasma substance P concentrations at 24 and 72 hours after chemotherapy were measured. Nineteen patients were evaluated. Nausea, vomiting, or anorexia was observed with the first course in 7 of 19 patients. During the second course with aprepitant, no patients experienced vomiting, and the toxicity grade of nausea, vomiting, or anorexia was decreased compared with those in the first course. Substance P concentrations showed no differences after chemotherapy, in patients with nausea, vomiting, or anorexia and in patients without. The addition of aprepitant to 5-HT3 receptor antagonist appears effective for CINV or anorexia for patients who received CHOP chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Women With Gynecological Cancer: A Preliminary Single-Center Study Investigating Medical and Psychosocial Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy is the treatment of choice for many gynecological tumors, but cytotoxic drugs lead to a wide range of stressful side effects; nausea and vomiting are 2 of the most common and distressing consequences of many chemotherapy regimens.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate various risk factors that could influence the experience of nausea and vomiting after the first chemotherapeutic infusion.

METHODS

Women treated for various gynecological cancers (n = 94) took part in the study. Pharmacological and personal risk factors in the development of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were assessed with the use of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and a self-report questionnaire. Regression analyses (both univariate and multiple) were performed to establish risk factors associated with CINV.

RESULTS

The study highlights the importance of working status (being involved in a working activity during treatment) as a protective factor for developing chemotherapy-induced nausea. Furthermore, younger age, levels of state anxiety, chemotherapy-induced nausea in previous treatments, and alcohol intake were found to have an effect on CINV, increasing its risk. Emetogenic potential was associated only with the presence of delayed vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this is a preliminary study into the risk factors of CINV in gynecological tumors, these findings offer support that personal risk factors contribute to individual differences in the frequency and severity of CINV.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Personal factors should be taken into consideration by the multidisciplinary treating team in gynecology.

The Effects of the Bali Yoga Program for Breast Cancer Patients on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Results of a Partially Randomized and Blinded Controlled Trial

Complementary and alternative medicine has been shown to be beneficial in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, conclusive results are lacking in order to confirm its usefulness. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a standardized yoga intervention could reduce these adverse symptoms. This was a partially randomized and blinded controlled trial comparing a standardized yoga intervention with standard care. Eligible patients were adults diagnosed with stages I to III breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Patients randomized to the experimental group participated in an 8-week yoga program. There was no significant difference between the experimental and control groups on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after 8 weeks. Results suggest the yoga program is not beneficial in managing these adverse symptoms. However, considering preliminary evidence suggesting yoga’s beneficial impact in cancer symptom management, methodological limitations should be explored and additional studies should be conducted.

The Benefit of Pro Re Nata Antiemetics Provided With Guideline-Consistent Antiemetics in Delayed Nausea Control

BACKGROUND

Delayed nausea after chemotherapy remains a symptom of interest. Clinicians often provide additional and/or pro re nata (p.r.n.) antiemetics with guideline-consistent antiemetics in an attempt to achieve further symptom control. Whether the usage of additional and/or p.r.n. antiemetics provide added benefit remains as a question.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the benefit of providing additional antiemetics and/or p.r.n. antiemetics with guideline-consistent antiemetics in the control of nausea, functioning, and quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

A secondary data analysis of 143 breast cancer patients who received guideline-consistent antiemetics for anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy was conducted. Instruments included vomiting frequency and nausea intensity items of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30.

RESULTS

Providing p.r.n. antiemetics alleviated the incidence of significant nausea (intensity, ≥3) in the delayed phase. The experience of nausea contributed to symptom incidence in the next phase and cycle. The intensity of delayed nausea demonstrated a moderate negative correlation with physical and role functioning and global health/QOL.

CONCLUSION

Providing patients with strategies to further control nausea (p.r.n. antiemetics) in addition to guideline-consistent antiemetics is recommended for practice. Because the nausea experience contributes to symptom incidence in the next phase and cycle and because the nausea intensity demonstrated a significant relationship with function and global health/QOL, proactive supportive approaches are strongly recommended.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Delayed nausea control may be improved by adhering to guideline-consistent antiemetics and using p.r.n. antiemetics. Delayed nausea control would contribute to patients' functioning and QOL.

Late chronotypes are associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in women with breast cancer

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, that is, the administration of chemotherapy before surgery, has been commonly used for locally advanced breast cancer to improve the surgical outcomes and increase the opportunity for breast-conserving therapy. Women with breast cancer often receive an anthracycline-based regimen as the neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with a high risk of emesis. Despite the development of novel antiemetics, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been commonly reported as a major adverse effect, affecting the quality of life of the patients. However, the factors predicting CINV in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear. In this single-institution, prospective, observational study conducted at an outpatient cancer centre in the Republic of Korea from November 2013 to March 2016, we analysed women with breast cancer who planned to be treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery. Candidate factors associated with CINV were assessed before neoadjuvant chemotherapy using the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. CINV was assessed after chemotherapy by using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool. Of a total of 143 participants, 7 patients were lost to follow-up and 2 patients were excluded due to changes in their treatment plan; thus, 134 patients were finally included in the analyses. Overall, 48.5% of the participants experienced CINV, with delayed CINV prevalence (42.5%) being more common than acute (39.6%). In the univariate analyses, overall CINV was significantly associated with late chronotypes (odds ratio [OR], 3.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-8.87; p = 0.009), a history of nausea/vomiting (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.10-4.37; p = 0.026) and anxiety (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.05-4.81; p = 0.036). In the multivariate analyses, late chronotypes (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 1.27-9.79; p = 0.015) and a history of nausea/vomiting (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.31-6.13; p = 0.008) remained significantly associated with CINV. In conclusion, in women with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery, late chronotypes were found to have an increased risk of CINV; these data suggest that clinicians need to assess and consider the chronotype in the management of CINV.

Patients' perception of chemotherapy side effects: Expectations, doctor-patient communication and impact on quality of life - An Italian survey

Chemotherapy side effects (CSE) have a strong impact on patients' quality of life (QOL). To assess patient perceptions of CSE, their impact on QOL and doctor-patient communication regarding these aspects, a survey was conducted among Italian cancer patients. Patients at least 18 years of age, who received chemotherapy, were administered a dedicated questionnaire to assess their point of view on five domains: expectations about CSE and impact on QOL; doctor-patient communication about CSE; treatments to reduce the impact of CSE; sexual life; family relationships/activities and employment. A total of 761 patients participated. CSE had a considerable impact on patient QOL. Nausea/vomiting was the most feared adverse effect before initiating chemotherapy and the one most commonly experienced during treatment. Patients generally reported good doctor-patient communication regarding information about CSE. In almost all cases, the oncologists prescribed an antiemetic treatment, but the incidence of nausea/vomiting was high. Cancer and CSE severely affected sexual life, daily activities and employment. CSE had a strong negative impact on QOL. Good doctor-patient communication is essential. Improving antiemetic strategies may improve QOL. Doctors' ability to inform patients about delicate issues, such as the impact of CSE on sexual life, needs to be improved.

Longitudinal Association of Poor Sleep Quality With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients With Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) include older age, female sex, alcohol consumption, and a history of motion sickness. Although gastrointestinal symptoms are found to be related with sleep and mood in other conditions, little is known about their effects on CINV.

METHODS

This prospective observational study recruited patients with early-stage breast cancer who had recovered from surgery before receiving a first cycle of anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Candidate factors associated with CINV were assessed before chemotherapy by using the following: the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Insomnia Severity Index, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) and chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) were defined according to a numeric rating scale (0-10) as follows: ≥3, nausea; ≥1, vomiting.

RESULTS

Between February 2012 and May 2014, data were collected from 198 patients. Chemotherapy-induced nausea occurred in 35.4% of patients, and CIV occurred in 31.3%. Chemotherapy-induced nausea was significantly associated with poor sleep quality (odds ratio [OR], 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-5.46; p = 0.024) and pretreatment nausea (OR, 4.81; 95% CI, 1.84-12.62; p = 0.001). Likewise, CIV was significantly associated with poor sleep quality (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.21-5.78; p = 0.015) and pretreatment nausea (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.23-7.66; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor sleep quality increases risk of CINV in patients with breast cancer. Sleep problems should be assessed and considered in the management of CINV.

Profile of Antiemetic Activity of Netupitant Alone or in Combination with Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in Ferrets and Suncus murinus (House Musk Shrew)

Background and Aims: Chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis involves the activation of multiple pathways, with 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT; serotonin) playing a major role in the initial response. Substance P tachykinin NK₁ receptor antagonists can reduce emesis induced by disparate emetic challenges and therefore have a clinical utility as broad inhibitory anti-emetic drugs. In the present studies, we investigate the broad inhibitory anti-emetic profile of a relatively new NK₁ receptor antagonist, netupitant, alone or in combination with the long acting 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, palonosetron, for a potential to reduce emesis in ferrets and shrews.

Materials and Methods: Ferrets were pretreated with netupitant and/or palonosetron, and then administered apomorphine (0.125 mg/kg, s.c.), morphine (0.5 mg/kg, s.c.), ipecacuanha (1.2 mg/kg, p.o.), copper sulfate (100 mg/kg, intragastric), or cisplatin (5–10 mg/kg, i.p.); in other studies netupitant was administered to Suncus murinus before motion (4 cm horizontal displacement, 2 Hz for 10 min).

Results: Netupitant (3 mg/kg, p.o.) abolished apomorphine-, morphine-, ipecacuanha- and copper sulfate-induced emesis. Lower doses of netupitant (0.03–0.3 mg/kg, p.o.) dose-dependently reduced cisplatin (10 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced emesis in an acute (8 h) model, and motion-induced emesis in S. murinus. In a ferret cisplatin (5 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced acute and delayed emesis model, netupitant administered once at 3 mg/kg, p.o., abolished the first 24 h response and reduced the 24–72 h response by 94.6%; the reduction was markedly superior to the effect of a three times per day administration of ondansetron (1 mg/kg, i.p.). A single administration of netupitant (1 mg/kg, p.o.) plus palonosetron (0.1 mg/kg, p.o.) combined with dexamethasone (1 mg/kg, i.p., once per day), also significantly antagonized cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis and was comparable with a once-daily regimen of ondansetron (1 mg/kg, p.o.) plus aprepitant (1 mg/kg, p.o.) in combination with dexamethasone (1 mg/kg, i.p.).

Conclusion: In conclusion, netupitant has potent and long lasting anti-emetic activity against a number of emetic challenges indicating broad inhibitory properties. The convenience of protection afforded by the single dosing of netupitant together with palonosetron was demonstrated and also is known to provide an advantage over other therapeutic strategies to control emesis in man.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting by risk profile: role of netupitant/palonosetron

As recommended by most recent antiemetic guidelines, the optimal prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) requires the combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) with an NK1-RA. Moreover, the major predictors of acute and delayed CINV include: young age, female sex, platinum- or anthracycline-based chemotherapy, nondrinker status, emesis in the earlier cycles of chemotherapy, and previous history of motion/morning sickness. Despite improved knowledge of the pathophysiology of CINV and advances in the availability of active antiemetics, an inconsistent compliance with their use has been reported, thereby resulting in suboptimal control of CINV in several cases. In this scenario, a new anti-emetic drug is now available, which seems to be able to guarantee better prophylaxis of CINV and improvement of adherence to guidelines. In fact, netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a ready-to-use single oral capsule, combining an NK1-RA (netupitant) and a 5-HT3-RA (palonosetron), which is to be taken 1 hour before the administration of chemotherapy, ensuring the coverage from CINV for 5 days. We reviewed the role of NEPA in patients at high risk of CINV receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In these patients, NEPA plus dexamethasone, as compared to standard treatments, achieved superior efficacy in all primary and secondary end points during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, including nausea assessment. Moreover, these results were also achieved in female patients receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. NEPA represents a real step forward in the prophylaxis of CINV.

Nausea as a sentinel symptom for cytotoxic chemotherapy effects on the gut-brain axis among women receiving treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer: an exploratory analysis

PURPOSE

Nausea is a common and potentially serious effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer and may function as a sentinel symptom reflecting adverse effects on the gut-brain axis (GBA) more generally, but research is scant. As a first exploratory test of this GBA hypothesis, we compared women reporting nausea to women not reporting nausea with regard to the severity of other commonly reported symptoms in this patient population.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of data systematically collected from women in active chemotherapy treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer (n = 158) was conducted. The Symptom Representation Questionnaire (SRQ) provided severity ratings for 22 common symptoms related to cancer and chemotherapy. Independent sample t tests and regression analyses were used to compare women with and without nausea with regard to their experience of other symptoms.

RESULTS

Nausea was reported by 89 (56.2 %) women. Symptoms that were significantly associated with nausea in bivariate and regression analyses included abdominal bloating, bowel disturbances, dizziness, depression, drowsiness, fatigue, headache, lack of appetite, memory problems, mood swings, shortness of breath, pain, sleep disturbance, urinary problems, vomiting, and weight loss. Symptoms that were not associated with nausea included hair loss, numbness and tingling, sexuality concerns, and weight gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Nausea experienced during chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer may be an indicator of broader effects on the gut-brain axis. A better understanding of the mechanisms underlying these effects could lead to the development of novel supportive therapies to increase the tolerability and effectiveness of cancer treatment.

Poor chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control in children receiving intermediate or high dose methotrexate

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy emetogenicity is the most important known determinant of chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) in children. However, direct evidence regarding the emetogenic potential of chemotherapeutic agents in children is limited. This study describes the prevalence of complete control of acute and delayed phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children receiving methotrexate. The prevalence of anticipatory CINV is described, and risk factors for CINV are explored.

METHODS

English-speaking children (4 to 18 years) receiving intermediate-dose (ID-MTX: >1 to <12 g/m(2)/dose) or high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX: ≥12 g/m(2)/dose) participated in this prospective study. Emetic episodes, nausea severity, and antiemetic administration were documented for 24 h from the start of the methotrexate infusion (acute phase) and for up to a further 168 h (delayed phase). CINV prophylaxis was provided at the discretion of the treating physician. Anticipatory CINV was assessed in the 24 h preceding chemotherapy. Complete CINV control was defined as no emetic episodes and no nausea.

RESULTS

Thirty children (mean age, 11.8 ± 4 years; ID-MTX, 20; HD-MTX, 10) completed the study. CINV prophylaxis included the following: ondansetron/granisetron plus dexamethasone or nabilone. Few patients experienced complete CINV control (ID-MTX: acute phase 20%, delayed phase 5%; HD-MTX: acute phase 0%, delayed phase 30%). Complete emesis control was higher (ID-MTX: acute phase 70%, delayed phase 50%; HD-MTX: acute phase 70%, delayed phase 60%). Anticipatory CINV was reported by 6/28 patients (21%). Patient age, sex, and history of motion sickness were not significant predictors of CINV.

CONCLUSIONS

The poor complete CINV control rate in children receiving methotrexate confirms the classification of HD-MTX as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and suggests that ID-MTX be reclassified as HEC.