Nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy: drug management in theory and in practice

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.

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Current antiemetic regimens are less effective in children than in adults. Fosaprepitant was recently approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children aged six months and older.

PROCEDURE

The pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) profile, safety, and tolerability of a single intravenous dose of fosaprepitant administered concomitantly with ondansetron with/without dexamethasone were evaluated in pediatric patients with cancer receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. PK/PD from three doses of fosaprepitant (3.0, 1.2, and 0.4 mg/kg, up to 150, 60, and 20 mg, respectively) were compared with placebo in 2- to 17-year-old subjects; an open-label amendment evaluated a fourth dose (5.0 mg/kg, up to 150 mg) in those under 12 years old. Historical adult PK data were used for comparison. Efficacy was measured as an exploratory endpoint.

RESULTS

PK data were evaluable for 167/234 subjects who completed cycle one. Aprepitant exposures were dose proportional; adolescents (12 to 17 years) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg had exposures similar to adults at the same dose. Higher weight-normalized doses (5 mg/kg) were necessary for children aged < 12 years to achieve comparable adult exposures. The adverse event profile was typical of cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16 (6.8%) subjects, with hiccups being most common (n = 5; 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous fosaprepitant was well tolerated by pediatric subjects with cancer, and dose-proportional exposures were observed. Subjects < 12 years old required higher doses to achieve comparable adult exposures.

Feeding Intolerance in Children with Severe Impairment of the Central Nervous System: Strategies for Treatment and Prevention

Children with severe impairment of the central nervous system (CNS) experience gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms at a high rate and severity, including retching, vomiting, GI tract pain, and feeding intolerance. Commonly recognized sources of symptoms include constipation and gastroesophageal reflux disease. There is growing awareness of sources due to the impaired nervous system, including visceral hyperalgesia due to sensitization of sensory neurons in the enteric nervous system and central neuropathic pain due to alterations in the thalamus. Challenging the management of these symptoms is the lack of tests to confirm alterations in the nervous system as a cause of symptom generation, requiring empirical trials directed at such sources. It is also common to have multiple reasons for the observed symptoms, further challenging management. Recurrent emesis and GI tract pain can often be improved, though in some not completely eliminated. In some, this can progress to intractable feeding intolerance. This comprehensive review provides an evidence-based approach to care, a framework for recurrent symptoms, and language strategies when symptoms remain intractable to available interventions. This summary is intended to balance optimal management with a sensitive palliative care approach to persistent GI symptoms in children with severe impairment of the CNS.

Antiemetic medication for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting remain a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting, and associated clinical problems. This is an update of the original systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged less than 18 years) about to receive or receiving chemotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society of Paediatric Oncology, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, and ISI Science and Technology Proceedings Index from incept to December 16, 2014, and trial registries from their earliest records to December 2014. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies. We also screened the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened abstracts in order to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid, or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (less than 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies that examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only.The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (27 studies). Adverse events were reported in 29 studies and nausea outcomes in 16 studies.Two studies assessed the addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT3 antagonists for complete control of vomiting (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). Three studies compared granisetron with ondansetron for complete control of acute nausea (pooled RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; 2 studies), acute vomiting (pooled RR 2.26; 95% CI 2.04 to 2.51; 3 studies), delayed nausea (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; 2 studies), and delayed vomiting (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; 2 studies). No other pooled analyses were possible.Narrative synthesis suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents, even when these agents are combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people, and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are effective in patients who are to receive emetogenic chemotherapy, with granisetron or palonosetron possibly better than ondansetron. Adding dexamethasone improves control of vomiting, although the risk-benefit profile of adjunctive steroid remains uncertain.

Recent advances in pharmacotherapy of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting remain among the most feared side effects of chemotherapy for cancer patients. Significant progress has been made in the last 15 years in developing more effective and better-tolerated measures to minimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). During the 1990s, the selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists were first introduced for the treatment of CINV, and resulted in more effective and better tolerated treatment of CINV. Despite recent progress, however, a significant number of patients still develop CINV, particularly during the 2-5-day period (delayed emesis) following chemotherapy. There is evidence that this may be an underappreciated problem on the part of some caregivers. Recently, two new antiemetics, aprepitant, the first member of the neurokinin-1 antagonists, and palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist, received regulatory approval in the U.S. Both represent useful additions to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of CINV.

Ginger in the prevention of nausea and vomiting: a review

Nausea and vomiting are physiological processes experienced by every human being at some stage of their life. They are complex protective mechanisms and the symptoms are influenced by the emetogenic response and stimuli. However, when these symptoms recur frequently, they can significantly reduce the quality of life and can also be detrimental to health. The existing antiemetic agents are ineffective against certain stimuli, are expensive, and possess side effects. Herbal medicines have been shown to be effective antiemetics, and among the various plants studied, the rhizome of Zingiber officinale, commonly known as ginger, has been used as a broad-spectrum antiemetic in the various traditional systems of medicine for over 2000 years. Various preclinical and clinical studies have shown ginger to possess antiemetic effects against different emetogenic stimuli. However, conflicting reports especially in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and motion sickness prevent us from drawing any firm conclusion. The current review for the first time summarizes the results. An attempt is also made to address the lacunae in these published studies and emphasize aspects that need further investigations for it to be of use in clinics in the future.

Medicinal Plants as Antiemetics in the Treatment of Cancer

Chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are the most common, intractable and unpleasant side effects in patients undergoing treatment for cancer. 5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone have significantly improved the control of acute nausea and vomiting, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a significant clinical problem. Combined neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with 5-HT3 antagonists and steroids are observed to be better in the control of both acute and delayed emesis. However, the use of these antiemetics is observed to possess inherent side effects. The medicinal plants such as Scutellaria baicalensis, Korean red ginseng, American ginseng berry, Ganoderma lucidum, Zingiber officinale, grape seed extract, and the oil of Mentha spicata are reported to be effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting mostly in preclinical studies. Of these, ginger has also been evaluated for its efficacy in humans and the results have been contradictory. The current review for the first time summarizes the results related to these properties. An attempt is also made to address the lacunae in these published studies and to emphasize aspects that need further investigations for these plants to be of use in clinics in the future.

Ondansetron in combination with gingerol suppresses cisplatin-induced pica in rats

AIM: To investigate whether ondansetron in combination with gingerol has suppressive effect on cisplatin-induced acute and delayed pica behavior in rats.

METHODS: Rats were divided randomly into blank control group, model control group, ondansetron group, gingerol group, and ondansetron plus gingerol group. Kaolin and food ingestion were recorded during 0-24 h and 48-72 h after cisplatin administration. At 72 h, the area postrema and jejunum tissue samples were taken to detect the immunoexpression of substance P by immunohistocheminstry.

RESULTS: During 0-24 h and 48-72 h after cisplatin administration, food ingestion increased significantly (t = 13.333, 15.000, 13.8333, 15.167, all P < 0.01) but kaolin ingestion decreased significantly (t = 9.122, 12.986, 8.525, 8.902, all P < 0.01) in the gingerol group and ondansetron plus gingerol group compared to the model control group. Compared to the ondansetron group, food ingestion was significantly higher in the gingerol group and ondansetron plus gingerol group (t = 8.000, 9.667, 11.500, 12.833, all P < 0.01), and kaolin ingestion was significantly lower in the ondansetron plus gingerol group (t = 2.499, 3.999, all P < 0.01). Kaolin ingestion was higher during 0-24 h (t = 1.365, P < 0.05) but lower during 48-72 h (t = 3.622, P < 0.01) in the gingerol group than in the ondansetron group. Compared to the gingerol group, kaolin ingestion decreased significantly in the ondansetron plus gingerol group during 0-24 h (t = 3.865, P < 0.01). No significant difference was noted in kaolin and food ingestion during 48-72 h between the ondansetron plus gingerol group and the gingerol group (t = 0.377, 1.333, all P > 0.05). The immunoexpression levels of substance P in the AP of gingerol group and ondansetron plus gingerol group were lower than that in the ondansetron group (t = 2.217, 2.408, all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Gingerol is able to improve food ingestion and inhibit cisplatin-induced pica behavior in rats probably by restraining the immunoexpression of substance P. Ondansetron in combination gingerol is able to effectively inhibit cisplatin-induced acute and delayed pica in rats.

Antiemetic medication for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in childhood

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are still a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting and associated clinical problems.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged < 18 years) about to receive/receiving chemotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS, trial registries from their earliest records to February 2008, and ASCO, MASCC and SIOP conference proceedings from 2001 to 2007. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors independently screened abstracts to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (< 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies which examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only.The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (22 studies). Adverse events were reported in 24 studies and nausea outcomes in 10 studies.The addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT(3) antagonists was assessed in two studies for complete control of vomiting (pooled relative risk (RR) 2.03; 95% CI 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). No other pooled analyses were possible.Narrative synthesis suggests 5-HT(3) antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents even when combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT(3) antagonists with dexamethasone added are effective in patients who are to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy although the risk-benefit profile of additional steroid remains uncertain.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

CONTEXT

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem in the treatment of children with cancer. The last decade has seen a variety of newer antiemetics being evaluated for CINV; their efficacy and side effects need to be assessed in children. This article attempts to highlight this revised management of CINV.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Online search; journals. Search period: 6 months.

RESULTS

Newer drugs (aprepitant, fosapritant and newer 5HT3 antagonists) have been found to be effective in CINV: both acute and delayed phases. Most of the available literature is, however, based on adult oncology patients, with a few trials on adolescent patients.

CONCLUSION

Every child receiving treatment for cancer should be evaluated for possible CINV. Their treatment should take into account the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic drugs. Newer antiemetic drugs have good efficacy and can be tried in pediatric patients, especially in children > 11 years of age.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of morphine and morphine 6-glucuronide after oral and intravenous administration of morphine in children with cancer

The aim of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of morphine and morphine 6-glucuronide (M6G) in children with cancer. Serum concentrations of morphine and M6G in children who received single oral or short term continuous intravenous morphine were determined by HPLC and ELISA assays, respectively. The serum C(max) of morphine and M6G after i.v. morphine administration was 560.5 and 309.0 nM and the T(max) was 61 and 65 min, respectively. The elimination half-life was 140.0 and 328.7 min, respectively. After oral administration of morphine, the serum C(max) of morphine and M6G was 408.34 and 256.3 nM and the T(max) was 40.0 and 60 min, respectively. The half-life was 131.0 and 325.8 min, respectively. The side effects were: drowsiness (100%), nausea and/or vomiting (57%), pruritus (28%) and urinary retention (14%). There were no reports of respiratory complications. This study showed that pharmacokinetics factors of morphine and M6G in children were significantly different from adults. Therefore the required dose for children should be different from that of adults and should be based on studies performed on children rather than on studies on adults. Some adverse effects, particularly nausea and pruritus, may be commoner than is usually thought, while others, particularly respiratory problems did not occur.

Interactions between metoclopramide and morphine: enhanced antinociception and motor dysfunction in rats

1. Opioid analgesics and anti-emetics are often used concomitantly to treat pain and nausea and vomiting in people with malignant disease. We investigated interactions between the opioid analgesic morphine and the anti-emetic metoclopramide, a dopamine D2 receptor antagonist, on nociception and gross motor function. 2. To assess for antinociceptive interactions, 11 Sprague-Dawley rats were injected intraperitoneally with morphine (5.0 mg/kg) or saline in combination with metoclopramide (0.5, 1.5 and 5.0 mg/kg) or saline and, 30 min later, the tail-flick latencies to a noxious thermal stimulus (49 degrees C water) were measured. Immediately thereafter we induced reperfusion hyperalgesia in the rats' tails using a tourniquet cuff and tested nociception again. Because, in addition to its ability to block D2 receptors, metoclopramide is also a weak 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, we assessed in a further 11 rats whether any antinociceptive interactions occurred between morphine (5.0 mg/kg) and ondansetron (0.2 and 2.0 mg/kg), an anti-emetic that selectively antagonizes 5-HT(3) receptors. To assess for motor interactions, we injected another group of nine rats with morphine (5.0 mg/kg) or saline in combination with metoclopramide (0.5 and 5.0 mg/kg) or saline and tested the ability of the animals to run on an 80 mm diameter rod rotating at 25 r.p.m. for 30 min. 3. Metoclopramide was not inherently analgesic or antihyperalgesic, but the highest dose of metoclopramide (5.0 mg/kg) enhanced the analgesic and antihyperalgesic effects of morphine. Neither dose of ondansetron was analgesic or antihyperalgesic or enhanced the antinociceptive actions of morphine. 4. Only the high dose of metoclopramide compromised running performance when administered with saline. However, coadministering morphine with metoclopramide (both doses) decreased motor performance. 5. Therefore, metoclopramide, possibly through its actions on D2 receptors and not 5-HT(3) receptors, enhances the analgesic and antihyperalgesic effects of morphine, but morphine exacerbates metoclopramide-induced motor dysfunction in rats.