Evaluating Aprepitant single-dose plus granisetron and dexamethasone in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A triple-blinded randomized clinical trial

Antiemetic medications for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Children continue to experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), despite effective antiemetic medications. Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines are underpinned by narrative syntheses and meta-analyses that compare only two treatments. This means not all antiemetics have been compared to one another, and estimates remain imprecise. We apply network meta-analysis (NMA) to overcome these limitations by comparing multiple treatments simultaneously.

METHODS

A systematic review identified and critically appraised RCTs comparing antiemetics recommended and licensed for the prevention of CINV in children. Bayesian NMA compared and ranked antiemetic effectiveness for the outcomes complete (CR) and partial response (PR) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases, nausea, and decreased food intake. Antiemetics given with and without dexamethasone were compared in separate networks as their underlying populations differed.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs (3115 patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)) were included. When given with dexamethasone, NK1 antagonists with ondansetron ranked highest for CR and PR in the acute and overall phases, PR in the delayed phase, and decreased food intake. Post hoc analysis shows further a benefit of adding olanzapine to regimens of aprepitant and ondansetron. Ondansetron ranked lower than palonosetron, for CR in the delayed and overall phases, and ondansetron was less effective than palonosetron for nausea prevention. Rankings for other regimens, including those given without dexamethasone, were uncertain or inconsistent across outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings serve to support the current recommendations of olanzapine (when given with aprepitant and ondansetron) and NK1 antagonists' regimens receiving HEC, but note that evidence of a significant difference in relative benefit, between patients receiving MEC and HEC, does not yet exist. Recommendations for palonosetron as the preferred 5HT3 antagonists may be extended, particularly, to those who are at high risk of nausea.

Ramosetron 3.0 μg/mL Combining with Dexamethasone (0.05, 0.1, 0.2 mg/mL) in Infusion Solutions: A Physicochemical Stability Study

Background

Dexamethasone in conjunction with type 3 serotonin receptor antagonists are being used to the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and postoperative nausea and vomiting in clinic. The present study aimed to investigates the stability of ramosetron with dexamethasone in infusions, with the goal of enhancing the safety and clinical applicability of their combined use.

Methods

Ramosetron hydrochloride (3.0 μg/mL) combining with dexamethasone (0.05, 0.1, 0.2 mg/mL) were prepared with 0.9% sodium chloride injection and then packaged in polyolefin bags or glass bottles. The stability were investigated kept in the dark at refrigeration for 14 days and at room temperature for 48 h.

Results

The concentration of both drugs maintained at least 97% in the various solutions for both storage conditions with light protection. In the light exposure conditions, as the extension of storage time, the concentration of both drugs had declined. All antiemetic mixture solutions remained clear and no changes in color, turbidity, precipitation, and the pH remained stable. The insoluble particles were in line with Chinese Pharmacopoeia.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that combinations of ramosetron hydrochloride with dexamethasone sodium phosphate in 0.9% sodium chloride injection remain stable for 14 days at 4°C and 48 h at 25°C when protected from light.

Comparison of oral aprepitant and intravenous fosaprepitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric oncology patients: a randomized phase III trial

Background

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists have improved the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but to date there has been no prospective comparison between oral aprepitant and intravenous fosaprepitant in pediatric oncology patients.

Methods

Our study was a double-parallel study, and the distribution ratio was 1:1. Children aged 2-12 years who were undergoing moderate or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron and dexamethasone combined with either a single dose of intravenous fosaprepitant (arm A), or 3 days of oral aprepitant (arm B). The primary outcome measure was the rate of complete response (CR) of CINV within the acute phase, defined as from the start through 24 hours after the last chemotherapy dose. Response during the delayed phase, overall response, and use of rescue antiemetics were also assessed.

Results

We prospectively evaluated 108 eligible patients, including 55 receiving fosaprepitant. Study observations were made during a single cycle for each patient. The occurrence of CR in the acute phase was statistically higher for patients receiving fosaprepitant (95% vs. 79%, P=0.018<0.05). Modest differences were seen in CR rates during the delayed phase (71% vs. 66%, P=0.586), and overall response rate (69% vs. 57%, P=0.179). The use of antiemetic rescue medicines was similar between arms A (11%) and B (7%).

Conclusions

Fosaprepitant produced more CRs of CINV in the acute phase than did aprepitant, although there were no statistical differences in delayed phase response, overall response, or use of rescue antiemetics. This study confirms the safety, efficacy, and potential advantages of fosaprepitant in reducing CINV in pediatric oncology patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04873284.