Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Moderately High to Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of dopamine-receptor antagonists for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Dopamine (D)2,3-receptor antagonists (RAs) were the first antiemetics used in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

AREAS COVERED

Eight D2,3-RAs, amisulpride, domperidone, droperidol, haloperidol, metoclopramide, metopimazine, olanzapine and prochlorperazine are reviewed focusing on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antiemetic effect and side effects.

EXPERT OPINION

Since the introduction of D2,3-RAs, antiemetics such as corticosteroids, 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3-RAs and neurokinin (NK)1-RAs have been developed. The classical D2,3-RAs are recommended in the prophylaxis of CINV from low emetic risk chemotherapy, but not as a fixed component of an antiemetic regimen for moderately or highly (HEC) emetic risk chemotherapy. D2,3-RAs are also used in patients with breakthrough nausea and vomiting. It should be emphasized, that most of these drugs are not selective for dopamine receptors.The multi-receptor targeting agent, olanzapine, is recommended in the prophylaxis of HEC-induced CINV as part of a four-drug antiemetic regimen, including a 5-HT3-RA, dexamethasone and a NK1-RA. Olanzapine is the most effective agent to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea.Side effects differ among various D2,3-RAs. Metopimazine and domperidone possess a low risk of extrapyramidal side effects. Domperidone and metoclopramide are prokinetics, whereas metopimazine delays gastric emptying and haloperidol does not influence gastric motility. Many D2,3-RAs increase the risk of prolonged QTc interval; other side effects include sedation and orthostatic hypotension.

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.

Resveratrol as an Adjuvant for Normal Tissues Protection and Tumor Sensitization

Cancer is one of the most complicated diseases in present-day medical science. Yearly, several studies suggest various strategies for preventing carcinogenesis. Furthermore, experiments for the treatment of cancer with low side effects are ongoing. Chemotherapy, targeted therapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy are the most common non-invasive strategies for cancer treatment. One of the most challenging issues encountered with these modalities is low effectiveness, as well as normal tissue toxicity for chemo-radiation therapy. The use of some agents as adjuvants has been suggested to improve tumor responses and also alleviate normal tissue toxicity. Resveratrol, a natural flavonoid, has attracted a lot of attention for the management of both tumor and normal tissue responses to various modalities of cancer therapy. As an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent, in vitro and in vivo studies show that it is able to mitigate chemo-radiation toxicity in normal tissues. However, clinical studies to confirm the usage of resveratrol as a chemo-radioprotector are lacking. In addition, it can sensitize various types of cancer cells to both chemotherapy drugs and radiation. In recent years, some clinical studies suggested that resveratrol may have an effect on inducing cancer cell killing. Yet, clinical translation of resveratrol has not yielded desirable results for the combination of resveratrol with radiotherapy, targeted therapy or immunotherapy. In this paper, we review the potential role of resveratrol for preserving normal tissues and sensitization of cancer cells in combination with different cancer treatment modalities.

Comparative Effectiveness of Pediatric Integrative Medicine: A Pragmatic Cluster-Controlled Trial

Symptoms of pain, nausea/vomiting, and anxiety (PNVA) are highly prevalent in pediatric inpatients. Poorly managed symptoms can lead to decreased compliance with care, and prolonged recovery times. Pharmacotherapy used to manage PNVA symptoms is of variable effectiveness and carries safety risks. Complementary therapies to manage these symptoms are gaining popularity due to their perceived benefits and low risk of harm. Pediatric integrative medicine (PIM) is the combination of complementary therapies with conventional medicine in pediatric populations. A two-arm, cluster-controlled, pragmatic clinical trial was carried out to compare the effectiveness of a PIM service in conjunction with usual care, versus usual care only to treat PNVA symptoms in hospitalized pediatric patients. The primary outcome was the improvement of PNVA symptom severity using a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participant enrollment occurred between January 2013 and January 2016. A total of 872 participants (usual care n = 497; PIM n = 375) were enrolled. The PIM therapies significantly reduced PNVA symptom severity (p < 0.001). This study found that a hospital-based PIM service is both safe and effective for alleviating PNVA symptoms. Future research should carry out this work in other pediatric inpatient divisions, and in other sites to determine the reproducibility of findings.

Optimizing antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japan: Update summary of the 2015 Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis

Patients with cancer should appropriately receive antiemetic therapies against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Antiemetic guidelines play an important role in managing CINV. Accordingly, the first Japanese antiemetic guideline published in 2010 by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) has considerably aided Japanese medical staff in providing antiemetic therapies across chemotherapy clinics. With the yearly advancements in antiemetic therapies, the Japanese antiemetic guidelines require revisions according to published evidence regarding antiemetic management worldwide. A revised version of the first antiemetic guideline that considered several upcoming evidences had been published online in 2014 (version 1.2), in which several updated descriptions were included. The 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0) (in Japanese) has addressed clinical antiemetic concerns and includes four major revisions regarding (1) changes in emetogenic risk categorization for anti-cancer agents, (2) olanzapine usage as an antiemetic drug, (3) the steroid-sparing method, and (4) adverse drug reactions of antiemetic agents. We herein present an English update summary for the 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0).

Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial of Droperidol and Ondansetron for Adult Emergency Department Patients With Nausea

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to separately compare effectiveness of 1.25 mg of intravenous (IV) droperidol and 8 mg of IV ondansetron with 0.9% saline placebo for adult emergency department (ED) patients with nausea. A novel primary outcome measure, expected to aid clinical interpretation of reported results, was employed.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted at the three EDs of Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia. The design was to demonstrate superiority of the active drugs over placebo. The primary outcome measure of symptom improvement was defined as a visual analog scale (VAS) rating change of -8 mm or more from baseline at 30 minutes posttreatment. Mean VAS changes per group and percentages experiencing the desired treatment effect were also compared. The study was concluded after recruitment of 215 of the planned 378 patients, as interim analysis confirmed that continuation could not result in a finding of superiority.

RESULTS

Of 215 patients, 73 (34%), 71 (33%), and 71 (33%) received droperidol, ondansetron, and placebo. Symptom improvement occurred in 75% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 64% to 85%), 80% (95% CI = 69% to 89%), and 76% (95% CI = 64% to 85%), respectively. Mean VAS changes were -29 mm (95% CI = -36 to -23 mm), -34 mm (95% CI = -41 to -28 mm), and -24 mm (95% CI = -29 to -19 mm), respectively. Desired treatment effects were experienced by 77% (95% CI = 65% to 86%), 73% (95% CI = 61% to 83%), and 59% (95% CI = 47% to 71%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

For adult ED patients with nausea, superiority was not demonstrated for droperidol or ondansetron over placebo.

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

Background

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

Methods/Design

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

Discussion

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

Ondansetron for pediatric concussion; a pilot study for a randomized controlled trial

Objectives

Assess the feasibility of a study evaluating one dose of oral ondansetron to decrease post-concussion symptoms at one week and one month following concussion in children aged 8 to 17 years old.

Method

This was a pilot study for a randomized, triple-blind controlled trial of one dose of either ondansetron or placebo performed in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department. Participants were children aged 8 to 17 years who sustained a concussion in the previous 24 hours and visited a single emergency department. The outcome of interest was an increase from pre-concussion baseline of at least 3 symptoms from the Post-Concussion Symptom Inventory, measured at one week and at one month following concussion. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of children who completed the assessment at one week following the intervention. Secondary outcome was the proportion of children who completed the assessment at one month following the intervention. All children, care givers, and those assessing the outcomes were blinded to the group assignment.

Results

Of the 218 children presenting with a concussion during the study period, we screened 108 and found 36/108 (33%) eligible to participate and 16/108 (14.8%) agreed to participate. All enrolled patients were compliant with the intervention and follow-up.

Conclusion

In our study population, approximately one-third of the screened concussion patients were eligible to participate and approximately one half of those eligible agreed to participate. Our study found that most enrolled patients preferred electronic follow-up; the noncompliance rate was minimal.

Are newer, more expensive pharmacotherapy options associated with superior symptom control compared to less costly agents used in a collaborative practice setting?

Innovative approaches to care may be necessary to provide the most effective symptom management to hospice patients. One approach is prescribing newer pharmacotherapy options with the potential to improve symptom management in hospice. Such therapies are sometimes prescribed outside of Food and Drug Administration indications and are typically more costly than older agents usedfor the same symptoms. Another approach is the collaborative practice (CP) care model, whereby clinical pharmacists are given prescriptive authority according to evidence-based protocols and algorithms within boundaries approved by a physician. The agents typically included in CPprotocols are those with wide therapeutic indices and with substantial evidence to support their use. The purpose of this study was to examine both approaches to management ofpain, insomnia, and nausea, comparing symptom scores for those patients who received noncollaborative drug therapies (transdermal fentanyl, zolpidem, and ondansetron) to those who received agents under CP (oral sustained-release opioids, temazepam, andprochlorperazine). The object of the study was to investigate outcomes associated with newer drug therapy options as compared to older agents for the management of pain, insomnia, and nausea. A secondary goal is to compare symptom outcomes for patients receiving pharmaceutical care under CP and non-CP models. The study design was retrospective with a cohort. A total of 50 patients were randomly selected for each cohort of the pain and insomnia study arms. Only 45 patients prescribed oral ondansetron met inclusion criteriafor the nausea group; 45 patients prescribed prochlorperazine were randomly selected as the comparator group. Patients were compared on their degree of response to the prescribed therapy. Response was classified as complete, partial, no improvement from baseline, worsened, or unknown. A complete response was defined as the symptom score improving to a 0 of 10, regardless of the previous value documented. A partial response was defined as any improvement in score that did not result in a 0 of 10. No improvement from baseline reflected a lack of overall change in score throughout the series of data points collected. A worsened response was any score found to be higher than the score documented at the time of dispense. The unknown category reflects any set of scores that had an “NIA” documented at the time of medication dispense or when documented for both attempts subsequent to dispensing the medication. A complete response was present in 14 of 50 (24 percent) of the patients prescribed fentanyl as compared with 12 of 50 (28 percent) of those prescribed oral therapy (p = .82). Responses defined as partial, no improvement over baseline, worsened, and unknown were also comparable between the two cohorts. A complete response was seen in 26 patients prescribed temazepam (52 percent), whereas only 11 (22 percent) of patients initially prescribed zolpidem achieved the same response (p = .003 7). Both groups had a similar distribution of partial, no improvement over baseline, and worsened responses. For the nausea arm of the study, a difference was found in the number of complete responses, favoring prochlorperazine (22 of 45, 48.9 percent for prochlorperazine, 12 of 45, 26.7 percent for ondansetron, p =. 0504), as well as an increased number of worse responses seen with ondansetron patients (p = .0513); however, neither difference was statistically significant. Newer pharmacotherapy options for the management of pain, insomnia, and nausea were not found to be superior when compared to older agents prescribed under CR

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy published after the last MASCC/ESMO antiemetic consensus conference in 2009 has been carried out.

METHODS

A systematic literature search using PubMed from January 1, 2009 to January 6, 2015 with a restriction to papers in English was conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, two randomized phase II and seven randomized phase III studies plus the results of three subgroup analysis of large phase III trials and those of a pilot study have been included.

CONCLUSIONS

In carboplatin-treated patients, a moderate benefit from adding an NK1 receptor antagonist to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist has been shown. However, in oxaliplatin-treated patients, contrasting results about the role of NK1 receptor antagonists have been obtained. At present, it is not possible to suggest a specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to use for the prevention of acute emesis in these patients. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis is recommended but in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with known potential for delayed emesis (e.g., oxaliplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) the use of dexamethasone for days 2-3 can be considered.

Oral intake of ginger for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is among the most common and distressing symptoms experienced by patients receiving cancer treatment. Nurses play a substantial role in the prevention and management of CINV. Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) is often advocated as beneficial for nausea and vomiting. Whether the herb is truly efficacious for this condition is, however, still a matter of debate.

OBJECTIVES

This experimental randomized, controlled trial was done to assess the effect of ginger on chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

All patients in the study (N = 60) received standard antiemetic drugs. The patients in the study group (n = 30) also received oral ginger for the first three days of the chemotherapy cycle. No intervention was performed in the control group (n = 30) except for the routine antiemetic treatment. Nausea severity and the number of vomiting and retching episodes were measured four times each day for the first five days of the chemotherapy cycle in the patient diary. Nausea severity was evaluated using a numeric scale ranging from 0 (no nausea) to 10 (very severe nausea).

FINDINGS

The researchers analyzed the five-day mean score of nausea severity and the number of vomiting and retching episodes. Based on this comparison, nausea severity and the number of vomiting episodes were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (p > 0.05). However, the change in the number of retching episodes between the intervention and control groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Reviewing current and emerging antiemetics for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

This review provides background information on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) classification and pathophysiology and reviews various antiemetic agents for CINV prophylaxis, including corticosteroids, serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RAs), and olanzapine. Other less commonly used agents are briefly discussed. Practical considerations are reviewed as well, including emetogenicity of chemotherapeutic regimens, patient-specific risk factors for CINV, principles of CINV management, health economics outcome research, and quality of life. Available data on the newly FDA-approved antiemetic combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is also reviewed. Prevention of CINV is an important goal in managing patients with cancer and is especially difficult with respect to nausea and delayed CINV. Corticosteroids are a mainstay of CINV prophylaxis and are usually given in combination with other therapies. The 5-HT3 RA palonosetron has shown increased efficacy over other agents in the same class for prevention of delayed emesis with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NK1 RAs improve emesis prevention in combination with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone. Olanzapine has shown efficacy for CINV prophylaxis and the treatment of breakthrough CINV. The new combination therapy, NEPA, has been shown to be efficacious for the prevention of acute, delayed, and overall CINV. Risk factors that have been identified for CINV include gender, age, and alcohol intake. It is important to assess the emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens as well as the potential impact of patient risk factors in order to provide adequate prophylaxis. Acute and delayed CINV are severe, burdensome side effects of chemotherapy; however, new data on prevention and the discovery of new agents can further improve CINV control.

Bioavailability and Metabolism of Prochlorperazine Administered via the Buccal and Oral Delivery Route

Prochlorperazine has been accepted as an effective antiemetic for more than 50 years; however, its therapeutic success has been limited by its low and variable absorption and high first-pass metabolism. A buccal dosage form of prochlorperazine has been developed. This article discusses 2 clinical studies conducted to characterize the single-dose and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of prochlorperazine and its metabolites after buccal administration. The results of these studies demonstrate that buccal administration of prochlorperazine produces plasma concentrations more than twice as high as an oral tablet, with less than half the variability. In addition to the metabolites, N-desmethyl prochlorperazine and prochlorperazine sulfoxide, 2 new metabolites, prochlorperazine 7-hydroxide and prochlorperazine sulfoxide 4'-N-oxide, were identified and quantitated. Exposure to metabolites after the buccal prochlorperazine formulation was approximately half that observed after the oral tablet. Buccal administration of prochlorperazine, twice daily, should enhance the therapeutic role of prochlorperazine in preventing and treating nausea and vomiting.

Evolving treatment paradigms for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most debilitating toxicities associated with cancer treatment. Although effective antiemetic agents are available, their use in practice often is suboptimal.

METHODS

The author reviews the pathophysiology of CINV as well as the drug classes and cost considerations that should be incorporated into treatment planning.

RESULTS

Several drug classes, including 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids, are effective, especially when used in combination. Older antiemetic agents, such as prochlorperazine and metoclopramide, as well as olanzapine may provide reasonable alternatives in certain settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions for CINV should include standard-of-care antiemetics combined with corticosteroids. The cost of using older, less expensive antiemetics may be outweighed by the expenditures to rescue patients after suboptimal prophylaxis, as well as the indirect costs of missed work and lost productivity.

Tools for assessing nausea, vomiting, and retching

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting, and retching are recognized as having an impact on patients' overall physical well-being, quality of life, and treatment decisions. Although there are many tools available to measure aspects of these symptoms, few offer a complete and concise clinical assessment.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to provide a comprehensive overview of the various instruments available for the assessment of cancer-related nausea, vomiting, and retching. Analysis included symptoms measured, period evaluated, type of questions posed, and aspects of each symptom measured.

METHODS

Searches were conducted to find relevant articles using nationally recognized oncology Web sites and 4 electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE/CINAHL and CINAHL/EBSCO, and Cochrane.

RESULTS

This review includes a total of 25 instruments that were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria of having been developed, or adapted, for the adult population, with an oncology focus.

CONCLUSION

The ideal instrument would include measurement of all 3 symptoms while remaining clear, concise, and clinically relevant.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Although only 1 instrument came close to meeting these criteria, this review provides nurses with specific information on a variety of instruments to assist providers in selecting the most appropriate instrument for their specific clinical setting. This comprehensive critique of instruments is important for nurses attempting to select a tool to guide optimum care for patients in the clinical setting.

Anti-emetic drugs in oncology: pharmacology and individualization by pharmacogenetics

OBJECTIVE

Nausea and vomiting are the most distressful side effects of cytotoxic drugs in cancer patients. Antiemetics are commonly used to reduce these side effects. However, the current antiemetic efficacy is about 70-80% in patients treated with highly-emetogenic cytotoxic drugs. One of the potential factors explaining this suboptimal response is variability in genes encoding enzymes and proteins which play a role in metabolism, transport and receptors related to antiemetic drugs. Aim of this review was to describe the pharmacology and pharmacogenetic concepts of of antiemetics in oncology.

METHOD

Pharmacogenetic and pharmacology studies of antiemetics in oncology published between January 1997 and February 2010 were searched in PubMed. Furthermore, related textbooks were also used for exploring the pharmacology of antiemetic drugs. The antiemetic drugs which were searched were the 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs), dopamine antagonists, corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, antihistamines and neurokinin-1 antagonists.

RESULT

The 5-HT3RAs are widely used in highly emetogenic chemotherapy in combination with dexamethasone and a neurokinin-1 antagonist, especially in acute phase. However, the dopamine antagonists and benzodiazepines were found more appropriate for use in breakthrough and anticipatory symptoms or in preventing the delayed phase of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The use of cannabinoids and antihistamines need further investigation. Only six articles on pharmacogenetics of the 5-HT3RAs in highly emetogenic chemotherapy are published. Specifically, these studies investigated the association of the efficacy of 5-HT3RAs and variants in the multi drug resistance 1 (MDR1) gene, 5-HT3A,B and C receptor genes and CYP2D6 gene. The pharmacogenetic studies of the other antiemetics were not found in this review.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that pharmacogenetic studies with antiemetics are sparse. It is too early to implement results of pharmacogenetic association studies of antiemetic drugs in clinical practice: confirmation of early findings is required.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and promethazine in adults

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess whether ondansetron has superior nausea reduction compared with metoclopramide, promethazine, or saline placebo in emergency department (ED) adults.

METHODS

This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded superiority trial was intended to enroll a convenience sample of 600 patients. Nausea was evaluated on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline and 30 minutes after treatment. Patients with a minimum preenrollment VAS of 40 mm were randomized to intravenous ondansetron 4 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 12.5 mg, or saline placebo. A 12-mm VAS improvement in nausea severity was deemed clinically important. We measured potential drug adverse effects at baseline and 30 minutes. Patients received approximately 500 mL of saline hydration during the initial 30 minutes.

RESULTS

Of 180 subjects who consented, 163 completed the study. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 23-47), and 68% were female. The median 30-minute VAS reductions (95% confidence intervals) and saline volume given for ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -22 (-32 to -15), -30 (-38 to -25.5), -29 (-40 to -21), and -16 (-25 to -3), and 500, 500, 500, and 450, respectively. The median 30-minute VAS differences (95% confidence intervals) between ondansetron and metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -8 (-18.5 to 3), -7 (-21 to -5.5), and 6 (-7 to 20), respectively. We compared the antiemetic efficacy across all treatments with the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .16).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows no evidence that ondansetron is superior to metoclopramide and promethazine in reducing nausea in ED adults. Early study termination may have limited detection of ondansetron's superior nausea reduction over saline.

Review of acupressure studies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effects of a noninvasive intervention, acupressure, when combined with antiemetics for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Ten controlled acupressure studies were included in this review. The review evaluated one quasi-experimental and nine randomized clinical trials, which included two specific acupressure modalities, that is, acupressure band and finger acupressure. The effects of the acupressure modalities were compared study by study. Four of seven acupressure band trials supported the positive effects of acupressure, whereas three acupressure band trials yielded negative results regarding the possible effects of acupressure; however, all the studies with negative results had methodological issues. In contrast, one quasi-experimental and two randomized finger acupressure trials all supported the positive effects of acupressure on CINV control. The reported effects of the two acupressure modalities in each phase of CINV produced variable results. Acupressure bands were effective in controlling acute nausea, whereas finger acupressure controlled delayed nausea and vomiting. The overall effect of acupressure was strongly suggestive but not conclusive. Differences in the acupressure modality, the emetic potential of chemotherapeutic agents, antiemetic use, and sample characteristics of each study made study-to-study comparisons difficult. Suggestive effects of acupressure, cost-effectiveness, and the noninvasiveness of the interventions encourage researchers to further investigate the efficacy of this modality. Acupressure should be strongly recommended as an effective, nonpharmacologic adjuvant intervention for CINV control if its positive effects are reproduced in future acupressure clinical trials.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) affects many cancer patients and has a great influence on quality of life. CINV involves coordination of several organs of the gastrointestinal tract, the peripheral and central nervous systems. Many neurotransmitters are involved in this process, and the predominant receptors are serotonin, neurokinin-1 and dopamine receptors. Risk factors for CINV include patient gender and age, past history of CINV, plus the emetogenicity and administration schedule of chemotherapy. Recommended antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with a high risk of delayed CINV include a serotonin antagonist, dexamethasone and aprepitant. Other moderately emetogenic chemotherapy requires a serotonin antagonist and dexamethasone. Medications for breakthrough symptoms include dopamine antagonists, lorazepam, metoclopramide, haloperidol, droperidol and other agents. Options for treatment of refractory CINV include olanzapine, dronabinol, nabilone, gabapentin. New evidence from non-controlled studies supports the use of olanzapine, casopitant and gabapentin in controlling the symptoms of CINV.

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Cancer Nausea and Vomiting

The experience of patients living with cancer and being treated with chemotherapy often includes the symptoms of nausea and vomiting. To provide a framework for high-quality management of these symptoms, we developed a set of key targeted evidence-based standards through an iterative process of targeted systematic review, development, and refinement of topic areas and standards and consensus ratings by a multidisciplinary expert panel as part of the RAND Cancer Quality–Assessing Symptoms Side Effects and Indicators of Supportive Treatment Project. For nausea and vomiting, key clinical standards included screening at the initial outpatient and inpatient visit, prophylaxis for acute and delayed emesis in patients receiving moderate to highly emetic chemotherapy, and follow-up after treatment for nausea and vomiting symptoms. In addition, patients with cancer and small bowel obstruction were examined as a special subset of patients who present with nausea and vomiting. The standards presented here for preventing and managing nausea and vomiting in cancer care should be incorporated into care pathways and should become the expectation rather than the exception.

Quantitative and Clinical Description of Postural Instability in Women With Breast Cancer Treated With Taxane Chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the postural control of women who received taxane chemotherapy for treatment of breast cancer using quantitative and clinically feasible measures.

DESIGN

Prospective descriptive study.

SETTING

University-based comprehensive cancer center.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty women who completed taxane treatment for breast cancer and 20 healthy controls participated in this study.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Two quantitative measures of postural control were used, Sensory Organization Test (SOT) and center of pressure (COP) velocities. Two clinically feasible measures of postural control were used, the Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale (FABS) and Timed Up & Go (TUG) test.

RESULTS

Compared with healthy controls, women with breast cancer had poorer postural control on all of the outcome measures. FABS and TUG scores correlated moderately with SOT and COP scores.

CONCLUSIONS

After taxane chemotherapy, women with breast cancer show significantly increased postural instability compared with matched controls. Clinically feasible measures of postural control correlated with quantitative tests. These results suggest that these clinical measures may be useful to screen patients to determine who may benefit from rehabilitation.

Update on the Management of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting

Chemotherapy is associated with a variety of side effects, and many of these can be dose-limiting. One of the most dreaded side effects for patients receiving chemotherapy is nausea and vomiting, however. Although in the last 2 decades there have been several advances in the development of new therapies for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), recent pharmacologic advances have significantly improved control of this feared side effect. Antiemetic guidelines help clinicians manage CINV and are updated frequently. Ongoing studies further define appropriate management of patients with CINV; of particular interest is delayed nausea and vomiting. With the addition of the long-acting serotonin antagonist, palonosetron, and the unique neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant, control of CINV has improved considerably for those patients receiving chemotherapy. This article discusses CINV and recent pharmacologic advances in controlling this side effect. Guidelines for the management of CINV are reviewed.

The neurokinin1 receptor antagonist aprepitant as an antiemetic for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

The neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist aprepitant has become part of standard antiemetic therapy for high-dose cisplatin. Recent results indicate that chemotherapy for breast cancer that contains an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide is more emetogenic than has been previously realised. One large randomised trial demonstrated that aprepitant substantially reduces the risk of vomiting or retching when added to a corticosteroid and a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (HT3) receptor antagonist. The adverse effects of standard antiemetics and chemotherapy do not appear to be increased by the addition of this novel antiemetic agent. Aprepitant should now also be considered to be part of prophylactic antiemetic therapy for women who receive chemotherapy that contains an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. The role of NK1 receptor antagonists in preventing emesis due to other cytotoxic agents that are deemed to be moderately emetogenic is still unclear.