The latest consensus on antiemetics

Overview of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) in metabolic diseases

GDF15 is a stress response cytokine and a distant member of the transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ) superfamily, its levels increase in response to cell stress and certain diseases in the serum. To exert its effects, GDF15 binds to glial-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) receptor alpha-like (GFRAL), which was firstly identified in 2017 and highly expressed in the brain stem. Many studies have demonstrated that elevated serum GDF15 is associated with anorexia and weight loss. Herein, we focus on the biology of GDF15, specifically how this circulating protein regulates appetite and metabolism in influencing energy homeostasis through its actions on hindbrain neurons to shed light on its impact on diseases such as obesity and anorexia/cachexia syndromes. It works as an endocrine factor and transmits metabolic signals leading to weight reduction effects by directly reducing appetite and indirectly affecting food intake through complex mechanisms, which could be a promising target for the treatment of energy-intake disorders.

Rapid elucidation of agonist-driven regulation of the neurokinin 1 receptor using a GPCR phosphorylation immunoassay

Agonist-induced phosphorylation is a crucial step in the activation/deactivation cycle of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), but direct determination of individual phosphorylation events has remained a major challenge. We have recently developed a bead-based immunoassay for the quantitative assessment of agonist-induced GPCR phosphorylation that can be performed entirely in 96-well plates, thus eliminating the need for western blot analysis. In the present study, we adapted this assay to three novel phosphosite-specific antibodies directed against the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor, namely pS338/pT339-NK1, pT344/pS347-NK1, and pT356/pT357-NK1. We found that substance P (SP) stimulated concentration-dependent phosphorylation of all three sites, which could be completely blocked in the presence of the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant. The other two endogenous ligands of the tachykinin family, neurokinin A (NKA) and neurokinin B (NKB), were also able to induce NK1 receptor phosphorylation, but to a much lesser extent than substance P. Interestingly, substance P promoted phosphorylation of the two distal sites more efficiently than that of the proximal site. The proximal site was identified as a substrate for phosphorylation by protein kinase C. Analysis of GPCR kinase (GRK)-knockout cells revealed that phosphorylation was mediated by all four GRK isoforms to similar extents at the T344/S347 and the T356/T357 cluster. Knockout of all GRKs resulted in abolition of all phosphorylation signals highlighting the importance of these kinases in agonist-mediated receptor phosphorylation. Thus, the 7TM phosphorylation assay technology allows for rapid and detailed analyses of GPCR phosphorylation.

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.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of olanzapine plus triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (OFFER study)

Background

Evidence supports prophylactic use of olanzapine for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, most studies to date have focused on patients with single-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Currently, administration of antiemetic therapies for nausea and vomiting induced by multiday chemotherapy regimens remains a challenge. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine combined with triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving multiday chemotherapy.

Methods

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 22 hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years old, were diagnosed with malignant solid tumors, and they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. All the study participants were scheduled to be treated with chemotherapy regimens containing 3-day cisplatin (3-day total dose ≥75 mg/m2). Randomization was computer generated and stratified by gender and chemotherapy treatment history. Allocation was done via an interactive web response system. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5 mg olanzapine or placebo orally before bedtime for 5 days combined with intravenous fosaprepitant (150 mg) 1 h before the administration of cisplatin on day 1, ondansetron hydrochloride intravenously, and dexamethasone orally 30 min before cisplatin from days 1 to 3. Dexamethasone was also administered at the same time on days 4 and 5. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) within the overall phase (days 1-8) after starting chemotherapy. Baseline plasma concentrations of P-substance and 5-HT were measured for exploratory analysis. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04536558.

Findings

Between December 2020 and September 2021, 349 patients with malignant solid tumors were enrolled in the study, with 175 participants randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 174 participants assigned to receive placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall phase was significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (69% vs. 58%, P = 0.031). A complete response benefit was observed in the olanzapine group versus the placebo group in almost all the subgroups. Four factors were considered significantly associated with complete response in multivariable analysis: treatment group, gender, baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT, and prior radiotherapy. All the reported adverse events associated with olanzapine administration were grades 1 and 2.

Interpretation

Olanzapine (5 mg) combined with fosaprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone was better than triple antiemetic therapy alone for patients receiving multiday chemotherapy regimens. Based on these results, the four-drug combination should be recommended as the best antiemetic regimen given to patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy and baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT may be used to identify individuals who are prone to CINV. However, all these findings need to be further validated in future studies.

Funding

Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. provided research grant and study drugs for this investigator-initiated study.

Attention and Intervention of Oncologists on Oxaliplatin-induced Adverse Reactions in Mainland China: A Cross-sectional Internet-based Survey

OBJECTIVE

This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the current attention and intervention of oncologists on oxaliplatin (OXA)-induced adverse reactions (ADRs).

METHODS

In 31 provinces or administrative regions across China, 401 oncologists were surveyed through a self-designed questionnaire. The survey queried the basic information of respondents, clinical use of OXA, OXA-induced ADRs, and relative interventions. Chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression were used to explore the sociodemographic factors influencing the safety perception of OXA and the relevant interventions.

RESULTS

The survey showed that the age of respondents was mainly distributed between 30 and 40 years and the working period for most oncologists was no more than 5 years. Oncologists with long working years were more willing to conduct patient education and inquire about ADRs than those with short working years. The rate of ADRs reported by oncologists with intermediate professional titles was significantly higher than that reported by oncologists with junior and senior professional titles.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that oncologists in mainland China are concerned about OXA-induced ADRs, but the reporting of ADRs still needs to be strengthened. Therefore, training and educational programs are urgently needed to improve the risk management of OXA-induced ADRs among oncologists.

Olanzapine for the Prevention and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Review to Identify the Best Way to Administer the Drug

Common treatment methods for malignant tumors include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, etc., among which chemotherapy plays an important role. However, chemotherapy brings corresponding side effects while killing tumor cells, and nausea and vomiting are the most common adverse reactions induced by chemotherapy. It not only affects the patient's appetite, resulting in malnutrition and electrolyte disturbances, but also reduces the patient's compliance with treatment, which further aggravates the disease. Thus, it is important to quickly prevent and cure nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy (CINV). In addition, with the continuous development of medicine, more and more antiemetic drugs have been developed. At present, the most common antiemetic agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are NK-1R antagonists, 5-HT3R antagonists, and dexamethasone. Surprisingly, olanzapine, often used as a psychotropic drug, has been found to be an effective antiemetic and is similar to other regimens on the safety of medicine. However, although there are numerous studies on the antiemetic effects of olanzapine, its comprehensive application remains unclear. Therefore, this review will elaborate the antiemetic effect of olanzapine in terms of the antiemetic mechanism and the safety, economic cost, dose, administration time, and drug delivery aspects.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

GDF15: emerging biology and therapeutic applications for obesity and cardiometabolic disease

Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) is a member of the TGFβ superfamily whose expression is increased in response to cellular stress and disease as well as by metformin. Elevations in GDF15 reduce food intake and body mass in animal models through binding to glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor family receptor alpha-like (GFRAL) and the recruitment of the receptor tyrosine kinase RET in the hindbrain. This effect is largely independent of other appetite-regulating hormones (for example, leptin, ghrelin or glucagon-like peptide 1). Consistent with an important role for the GDF15-GFRAL signalling axis, some human genetic studies support an interrelationship with human obesity. Furthermore, findings in both mice and humans have shown that metformin and exercise increase circulating levels of GDF15. GDF15 might also exert anti-inflammatory effects through mechanisms that are not fully understood. These unique and distinct mechanisms for suppressing food intake and inflammation makes GDF15 an appealing candidate to treat many metabolic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, cardiovascular disease and cancer cachexia. Here, we review the mechanisms regulating GDF15 production and secretion, GDF15 signalling in different cell types, and how GDF15-targeted pharmaceutical approaches might be effective in the treatment of metabolic diseases.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olanzapine-containing antiemetic therapy for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) patients

PURPOSE

Olanzapine-containing regimens have been reported to be effective in preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), but it is unsure whether it is cost-effective. There has been no cost-effectiveness analysis conducted for olanzapine using costs from the USA. The aim of this study is to determine whether olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens are cost-effective in patients receiving HEC.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost and health outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens and otherwise-identical regimens. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to individually investigate the effect of (i) lower complete response (CR) rates of olanzapine, closer to non-olanzapine-containing regimens; (ii) higher FLIE scores for patients who achieved no/incomplete response, closer to FLIE scores of patients achieving a complete response; (iii) differing costs of olanzapine to reflect different costs per hospitals, globally, due to different insurance systems and drug costs; and (iv) varying costs for uncontrolled CINV, to account for varying durations of chemotherapy and accompanying uncontrolled CINV.

RESULTS

Olanzapine regimens have an expected cost of $325.24, compared with $551.23 for non-olanzapine regimens. Meanwhile, olanzapine regimens have an expected utility/index of 0.89, relative to 0.87 for non-olanzapine regimens. Olanzapine-containing regimens dominate non-olanzapine-containing regimens even if CR of olanzapine-containing regimens fall to 0.63. Only when CR is between 0.60 and 0.62 is olanzapine both more effective and more costly.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-containing regimens are both cheaper and more effective in the prophylaxis of CINV in HEC patients, compared with non-olanzapine-containing regimens. Future CINV trial resources should be allocated to understand newer antiemetics and compare them to olanzapine-containing regimens as the control arm. Further analysis should use nationally representative data to examine medication costs by payer type.

Olanzapine for the prophylaxis and rescue of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review, meta-analysis, cumulative meta-analysis and fragility assessment of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to rigorously review the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in defined hematology oncology settings including (1) the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) settings (2) at 5 mg and 10 mg doses, and (3) for response rates for use in the acute, delayed, and overall settings post-MEC and HEC.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 23, 2020. The primary efficacy endpoints were the rate of complete response, in the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy), and overall (0-120 h post-chemotherapy) phases. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the rates of no nausea and no emesis, for each phase. Safety endpoints were the rate of no serious adverse events (i.e., no grade 3 or 4 toxicities), as assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) criteria. The Mantel-Haenszel, random-effects analysis model was used to compute risk ratios and accompanying 95% confidence intervals for each endpoint. For endpoints that statistically favored one arm, absolute risk differences were computed to assess whether there is a 10% or greater difference, used as the threshold for clinical significance by MASCC/ESMO. Fragility indices were also calculated for each statistically significant endpoint, to quantitatively assess the robustness of the summary estimate. A cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for each efficacy meta-analysis with more than 5 studies, also using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects analysis model.

RESULTS

Three studies reported on olanzapine for the rescue of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV); 22 studies reported on olanzapine in the prophylactic setting. For studies reporting on HEC patients, olanzapine-containing regimens were statistically and clinically superior in seven of nine efficacy endpoints in the prophylaxis setting. When olanzapine is administered at a 10-mg dose, it is statistically and clinically superior to control patients in eight of nine endpoints among adults. Olanzapine may be effective in the MEC setting and when administered at 5-mg doses, but the paucity of data leads to notable uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Further RCTs are needed in the setting of MEC patients and administration of olanzapine at a lower 5-mg dose, which may be given to reduce the sedative effect of olanzapine at 10 mg.

Successful implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces nausea and vomiting after infratentorial craniotomy for tumour resection: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Infratentorial craniotomy patients have a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown in multiple surgical disciplines to improve outcomes, including reduced PONV. However, very few studies have described the application of ERAS to infratentorial craniotomy. The aim of this study was to examine whether our ERAS protocol for infratentorial craniotomy could improve PONV.

METHODS

We implemented an evidence-based, multimodal ERAS protocol for patients undergoing infratentorial craniotomy. A total of 105 patients who underwent infratentorial craniotomy were randomized into either the ERAS group (n = 50) or the control group (n = 55). Primary outcomes were the incidence of vomiting, nausea score, and use of rescue antiemetic during the first 72 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative anxiety level, sleep quality, and complications.

RESULTS

Over the entire 72 h post-craniotomy observation period, the cumulative incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the ERAS group than in the control group. Meanwhile, the incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the ERAS group on postoperative days (PODs) 2 and 3. Notably, the proportion of patients with mild nausea (VAS 0-4) was higher in the ERAS group as compared to the control group on PODs 2 or 3. Additionally, the postoperative anxiety level and quality of sleep were significantly better in the ERAS group.

CONCLUSION

Successful implementation of our ERAS protocol in infratentorial craniotomy patients could attenuate postoperative anxiety, improve sleep quality, and reduce the incidence of PONV, without increasing the rate of postoperative complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR-INR-16009662, 27 Oct 2016, Clinical study on the development and efficacy evaluation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in Neurosurgery.

GDF15 Induces Anorexia through Nausea and Emesis

Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) is a cytokine that reduces food intake through activation of hindbrain GFRAL-RET receptors and has become a keen target of interest for anti-obesity therapies. Elevated endogenous GDF15 is associated with energy balance disturbances, cancer progression, chemotherapy-induced anorexia, and morning sickness. We hypothesized that GDF15 causes emesis and that its anorectic effects are related to this function. Here, we examined feeding and emesis and/or emetic-like behaviors in three different mammalian laboratory species to help elucidate the role of GDF15 in these behaviors. Data show that GDF15 causes emesis in Suncus murinus (musk shrews) and induces behaviors indicative of nausea/malaise (e.g., anorexia and pica) in non-emetic species, including mice and lean or obese rats. We also present data in mice suggesting that GDF15 contributes to chemotherapy-induced malaise. Together, these results indicate that GDF15 triggers anorexia through the induction of nausea and/or by engaging emetic neurocircuitry.