Comparative efficacy of oral and intravenous granisetron for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced emesis

The effect of the selective 5-HT(3) receptor agonist on ferret gut motility

The effect of the selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)(3) receptor agonist YM-31636 (2-(1H-imidazol-4-ylmethyl)-8H-indeno[1,2-d]thiazole monofumarate) on gut motility of fed ferrets was investigated. YM-31636 (0.1 mg/kg p.o.) induced a giant migrating contraction (GMC)-like, high-amplitude, ungrouped colonic contraction although it did not change the basal colonic motility pattern. This GMC-like contraction was always accompanied by defecation. Both GMC-like contraction and defecation were inhibited with the selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist ramosetron. YM-31636 affected gastric, duodenal and ileal motility pattern only slightly. These results suggest that 5-HT(3) receptor agonists such as YM-31636 are useful in treating constipation since they facilitate GMC-like contractions and defecation without undesired changes in gut motility pattern.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis by the selective neurokinin-1 antagonists, L-758,298 and MK-869

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested that antiemetic therapy with a triple combination of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist MK-869, a serotonin (5-HT(3)) antagonist, and dexamethasone provides enhanced control of cisplatin-induced emesis compared with standard therapy regimens. The authors compared the antiemetic activity of a dual combination of MK-869 and dexamethasone with that of a standard dual combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone to characterize further the efficacy and tolerability profile of MK-869.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active agent-controlled study of 177 cisplatin-naïve patients with malignant disease. On Day 1, MK-869 was given intravenously as its water-soluble prodrug, L-758,298. Patients were randomized to one of three groups as follows. Group I received L-758,298 100 mg intravenously (i.v.), then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by 300 mg MK-869 (tablet) orally on Days 2-5; Group II received L-758,298 100 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5; and Group III received ondansetron 32 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5. Emesis was recorded over Days 1-5 in a diary. Nausea was assessed every 24 hours by visual analog scale. Additional medication was available for emesis or nausea at any time. The primary efficacy parameters of interest were the proportion of patients without emesis and the proportion without emesis or rescue therapy on Day 1 (acute phase) and on Days 2-5 (delayed phase).

RESULTS

No serious adverse events were attributed to L-758,298 or MK-869. On Day 1, the proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication were 44% of patients in Group I, 36% of patients in Group II, 40% of patients in Groups I and II combined, and 83% of patients in Group III (P < 0.001 for Group III vs. the combined Groups I and II). The proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication on Days 2-5 were 59% of patients in Group I, 46% of patients in Group II, and 38% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I vs. Group III). The proportions of patients who were without emesis on Day 1 were 49% of patients in Group I, 47% of patients in Group II, and 84% of patients in Group III (P < 0.01 for Group I or II vs. Group III). On Days 2-5, however, the proportions of patients who were without emesis on Days 2-5 were 65% of patients in Group I, 61% of patients in Group II, and 41% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I or II vs. Group III). Nausea scores in the acute phase were lower for Group III than for Group I, Group II, or Groups I and II combined (P < 0.05), although there was no significant difference among groups either for the delayed phase or overall for Days 1-5.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the L-758,298 and dexamethasone combination reduced acute (Day 1) emesis compared with historic rates, dual therapy with ondansetron and dexamethasone was superior in controlling acute emesis. Continued dosing with MK-869 may enhance control of other measures of delayed emesis, such as the use of rescue medication, although confirmation is required before a definitive conclusion may be drawn. MK-869 given as dual therapy with dexamethasone was superior to ondansetron with dexamethasone for the control of delayed emesis (Days 2-5) and control of the need for rescue medication on Days 2-5.

Balancing efficacy with cost: antiemetic control in the pediatric stem cell transplant (SCT) population

We studied the practice patterns regarding intravenous (i.v.) ondansetron in children receiving stem cell transplants (SCT) at The Children's Hospital, Boston to identify cost efficiencies. The pharmacy provided information on material and preparation costs on 36 patients who received i.v. ondansetron during 41 SCT in 1995. We examined the effects of frequency, duration, and route of administration on costs. There were 498 days of ondansetron administration costing $49,083 (95$). Tremendous variation existed in frequency and duration with one third receiving i.v. ondansetron once daily, despite published evidence of equivalence of once a day and divided dosing. A switch to once daily i.v. dosing for all patients would have resulted in >/=28% savings. The median duration of use was 11 days (range 1-48); placing a cap for 7-10 days based on the length of SCT conditioning regimens, would produce savings of 48-60% over current use. By shifting administration route from i.v. to oral, a savings of 67% over current use, without a cap on duration, would be realized. Identifying areas for cost savings can be achieved after thorough analysis of all the component costs. We demonstrated that significant cost reductions could be realized by simple changes in prescribing practices without jeopardizing efficacy. These savings are achieved by standardizing dosing interval, route of administration and duration of treatment without altering daily dosage or access to an effective antiemetic. Bone Marrow Transplantation (2000) 25, 553-557.

Guidelines for anti-emetic therapy: acute emesis

Anti-emetic therapy has become integral to the management of patients with cancer. Goals related to complete emesis control include providing treatment that reduces hospitalisation and time in the ambulatory setting, care that is convenient for the patient and therapy that enhances patients' quality of life. A panel of clinical, health economic and basic scientists with expertise in various oncology disciplines reviewed published literature to develop evidence-based consensus guidelines for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Currently, serotonin receptor antagonists and corticosteroids are the two categories of anti-emetics that are most effective, have the fewest side-effects and are convenient to use. These agents are recommended in combination for highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens and as single agents or in combination for moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. When possible, these agents may be given orally in single doses; current evidence does not support dose escalation for either category of anti-emetics. In special situations, such as the use of high-dose chemotherapy combination regimens, the most emetogenic component of the regimen should dictate the choice of anti-emetic. Appropriate anti-emetic use described in these guidelines represents both good medical practice and a sensible economic approach to care.

Reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist. L-754,030 Antiemetic Trials Group

BACKGROUND

The localization of substance P in brain-stem regions associated with vomiting, and the results of studies in ferrets, led us to postulate that a neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist would be an antiemetic in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy.

METHODS

In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 159 patients who had not previously received cisplatin, we evaluated the prevention of acute emesis (occurring within 24 hours) and delayed emesis (on days 2 to 5) after a single dose of cisplatin therapy (70 mg or more per square meter of body-surface area). Before receiving cisplatin, all the patients received granisetron (10 microg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatments in addition to granisetron and dexamethasone: 400 mg of an oral trisubstituted morpholine acetal (also known as L-754,030) before cisplatin and 300 mg on days 2 to 5 (group 1), 400 mg of L-754,030 before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 2), or placebo before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 3). Additional medication was available at any time to treat occurrences of vomiting or nausea.

RESULTS

In the acute-emesis phase, 93 percent of the patients in groups 1 and 2 combined and 67 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001). In the delayed-emesis phase, 82 percent of the patients in group 1, 78 percent of those in group 2, and 33 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001 for the comparison between group 1 or 2 and group 3). The median nausea score in the delayed-emesis phase was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 3 (P=0.003). No serious adverse events were attributed to L-754,030.

CONCLUSIONS

The neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist L-754,030 prevents delayed emesis after treatment with cisplatin. Moreover, combining L-754,030 with granisetron plus dexamethasone improves the prevention of acute emesis.

Options in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis

PURPOSE

The incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced emesis, pathophysiology of the emetic response, and antiemetic treatment of options are reviewed.

OVERVIEW

Nausea and vomiting are among the most common and debilitating side effects of cancer chemotherapy. If not controlled, these side effects may interfere with the delivery of potentially life-saving treatment. Acute, delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting may be prevented by appropriate antiemetic therapy. Drug selection is based on the emetogenicity of the patient's cancer treatment and potency of the antiemetic agent. Efficacy and safety of the antiemetic regimen are often improved by combining agents with different mechanisms of action.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

By preventing and controlling chemotherapy-induced emesis, clinicians may improve cancer patients' functional status and quality of life significantly. Improved tolerability may lead to greater patient acceptance of chemotherapy and prevent premature withdrawal from or cessation of treatment. Controlling chemotherapy-induced emesis also helps to decrease the direct and indirect costs of managing cancer.