Likelihood of a subsequent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) event in patients receiving low, moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC/MEC/HEC)

Risk Factors Associated with Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Women with Breast Cancer Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Individual Patient-Based Analysis of Three Prospective Antiemetic Trials

Purpose

Although risk factors related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified in previous studies, only a few studies have evaluated the risk factors associated with contemporary antiemetic prophylaxis, including olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA-containing regimens. This study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with CINV development in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

Methods

Data from 304 patients enrolled in 3 previously reported prospective antiemetic studies were included. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict risk factors associated with CINV occurrence. Additionally, the likelihood of treatment failure in relation to the number of risk factors in individual patients was evaluated.

Results

Multivariate analysis of the entire study group revealed that obesity status (defined as body mass index/= 25.0 kg/m2) and the use of olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA-containing anti-emetic regimens were associated with a high likelihood, while a history of motion sickness was associated with a lower likelihood, complete response (CR), and "no nausea" in the overall phase. A history of vomiting during pregnancy was also associated with a lower likelihood of an overall CR. Patients with an increasing number of risk factors had a higher likelihood of treatment failure and shorter time to first vomiting. Those who did not achieve CR and "no nausea" in the first cycle were less likely to achieve these parameters in the subsequent cycle of chemotherapy.

Conclusion

The present study confirmed previously reported risk factors for CINV in Chinese breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Further optimization of CINV control is required for patients with identifiable risk factors; olanzapine/aprepitant- or NEPA- containing prophylaxis are the preferred contemporary anti-emetics regimens for Chinese breast cancer patients undergoing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy.

Duration of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) as a Predictor of Recurrent CINV in Later Cycles

BACKGROUND

The relationship between CINV duration and recurrence in subsequent cycles is largely unstudied. Our objective was to determine if patients experiencing CINV in their first cycle of chemotherapy (C1) would face increased risk of CINV in later cycles and whether the duration of the CINV would predict increased risk of recurrence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using data from a previously reported phase III trial, we assessed patients' recurrence of breakthrough CINV after antiemetic prophylaxis for anthracycline+cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer, comparing C1 short CINV vs. extended CINV as a secondary analysis. Complete response (CR) and CINV duration were primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. CR was considered prophylaxis success; lack of CR was considered treatment failure (TF).

RESULTS

Among 402 female patients, 99 (24.6%) had TF in C1 (TF1). The remaining 303 patients (CR1) had ≥93% CR rates in each subsequent cycle, while the 99 patients with TF1 had TF rates of 49.8% for cycles 2-4 (P < .001). The 51 patients with extended TF (≥3 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 73/105 later cycles (69.5%, P < .001), while the 48 patients with short TF (1-2 days) in C1 had recurrent TF in 33/108 later cycles (30.6%). The relative risk of recurrence after C1 extended TF was 2.28 (CI 1.67-3.11; P < .001) compared to short TF.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis success in C1 led to >90% repeat success across cycles of AC-based chemotherapy. For patients with breakthrough CINV, extended duration strongly predicted recurrent CINV. The duration of CINV should be closely monitored, and augmenting antiemetic prophylaxis considered for future cycles when extended CINV occurs.

Efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last twenty years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, direct comparative data remain insufficient, as many new regimes lack head-to-head comparisons. In this study, through an indirect comparison, we overcome this limit by providing the most up-to-date estimate of the efficacy and safety of all combinations used for HEC-induced nausea and vomiting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until June, 30th 2022. We included phase II-III RCTs, including adults with any cancer receiving HEC, and compared different antiemetic regimes to prevent CINV. The primary outcome was the overall complete response (defined as the absence of vomiting and of the use of rescue drugs from 0 to 120 hrs since chemotherapy); secondary outcomes were acute (absence of vomiting and use of rescue medicine 0-24 hrs after chemotherapy) and delayed (24-120 hrs) response and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 53 RCTs enrolling 22 228 patients were included. We classified the different antiemetic regimes into 21 different groups. Overall, 3- or 4-drug regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone, 5HT3 antagonists, mirtazapine or olanzapine with or without NK antagonists, yielded the highest probability to be the most effective regimen in terms of complete response. Regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonist have the lowest probability of being the most effective regimen in terms of complete, acute, and delayed response.

CONCLUSION

In our network meta-analysis, 4-drug regimens with olanzapine displayed the highest probability of efficacy in terms of complete response. A 3-drug regimen with olanzapine represents a valid option in a limited resource context.

Practice Patterns for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting and Antiemetic Guideline Adherence Based on Real-World Prescribing Data

BACKGROUND

Guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis improves nausea and vomiting control in most patients undergoing chemotherapy. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology (MASCC/ESMO) antiemetic guidelines recommend prophylaxis with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)- and carboplatin (considered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy)-based chemotherapy. Here, we analyze the use of NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis associated with HEC and carboplatin.

METHODS

The data source was the Global Oncology Monitor (Ipsos Healthcare). Geographically representative physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. were screened for treatment involvement and number of patients treated per month. Patients' data from January to December 2018 were collected from medical charts and extrapolated on the basis of the total number of physicians who prescribe chemotherapy. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was classified per MASCC/ESMO guidelines.

RESULTS

Data from 45,324 chemotherapy-treated patients were collected, representing a total extrapolated prevalence of 1,394,848 chemotherapy treatments included in the analysis. NK1 RAs were used in 45%, 42%, and 19% of patients receiving cisplatin-, AC-, and carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively; 18%, 24%, and 7% received the guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone combination; no antiemetics were prescribed for 12% of the treatments. Often, physicians' perception of the emetic risk of chemotherapy did not follow MASCC/ESMO guideline classification.

CONCLUSION

Low adherence to antiemetic guidelines was revealed in clinical practice in five European countries, with 15% of all HEC-/carboplatin-based treatments receiving guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone prophylaxis and 12% of them receiving no antiemetics. New strategies for improving guideline adherence are urgently needed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Despite recent advances in antiemetic therapy, a substantial proportion of patients experience nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in daily clinical practice. Antiemetic guidelines aim at prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy can effectively prevent vomiting and, to a lesser extent, nausea in most patients with cancer. This study reports low adherence to antiemetic guidelines in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy setting in daily clinical practice across five European countries. Opportunity exists to increase adherence to antiemetic guideline recommendations. Implementation of strategies to facilitate guideline adherence can potentially improve CINV control.

Avoidable Acute Care Use Associated with Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy or Oxaliplatin

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) contributes to avoidable acute care, a metric now tracked in Medicare's oncology outcome measure. CINV is preventable, yet guidelines are often not followed. We sought to quantify acute care involving CINV and other avoidable toxicities after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to identify excess risk and assess clinician adherence to antiemesis guidelines for HEC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated U.S. electronic health records (2012-2018) using Medicare's OP-35 outcome measure to identify avoidable acute care involving any of 10 toxicities, including CINV, after HEC regimens relative to non-HEC. Antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as use ofneurokinin-1 (NKl) receptor antagonists Q5 (RAs) plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA+ dexamethasone at HEC initiation.

RESULTS

Among 17,609 patients receiving HEC, acute care rates associated with HEC chemotherapy included 32% cisplatin, 31% carboplatin, and 21% anthracycline/cyclosphospharnide (AC), with 76% meeting the criteria as avoidable events. Oxaliplatin rates were 29%. Avoidable acute care occurred 1.83 times (95% confidence interval, 1.76-1.91, p < .0001) as often after HEC versus non-HEC excluding oxaliplatin; CINV-related acute care occurred 2.29 times as often. Nonadherence to antiemesis guidelines occurred in 34% and 24% of cisplatin and AC courses, respectively, because of omission of a NKl RA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with HEC regimens experienced high avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. Nonadherence to guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis highlights the need to ensure adherence to antiemetic guidelines, including the use of NKl RA in HEC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

After survival, perhaps the most important goal in oncology is limiting avoidable acute care, a goal now used by Medicare to impact cancer reimbursement. This study found that patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimens had high rates of avoidable acute care use, 1.8 times the risk seen for other chemotherapy. A substantial proportion of the avoidable acute care involved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results showed that incomplete adherence to national antiemetic guidelines for HEC regimens primarily driven by omission of upfront neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist use, suggesting that improved adherence can meaningfully resolve this gap in quality and cost of care.

Unscheduled hydrations: redefining complete response in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting studies

Breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is nausea and/or vomiting occurring within 5 days of chemotherapy administration despite using guideline-directed prophylactic antiemetic agents. It is highly prevalent (30–40%), usually requiring immediate treatment or “rescue” medication. If breakthrough CINV occurs, antiemetic guidelines recommend using an antiemetic agent from a different class not used in prophylaxis, along with intravenous hydration and/or dexamethasone. Data supporting these guideline recommendations are limited. Importantly, costs associated with breakthrough CINV can be substantial (i.e., unscheduled hydrations). Two retrospective analyses evaluating guideline-adherent CINV prophylaxis suggest that the initial antiemetic selection may decrease breakthrough CINV. Here we review optimal CINV prophylactic strategies and introduce unscheduled hydration as a potential important surrogate for breakthrough CINV aligning with cost-effective cancer care.

Oral versus intravenous palonosetron in Chinese cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: A non-inferiority phase III trial

OBJECTIVE

The 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (PALO) is approved (United States/Europe) as an oral formulation for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adult cancer patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for the acute phase only, in the United States, or as intravenous (IV) formulation in patients undergoing MEC or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. This phase III study compares the efficacy/safety of oral versus IV PALO in Chinese patients.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients with solid tumours scheduled for MEC received oral PALO 0.50 mg or IV PALO 0.25 mg. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of patients with complete response in the acute phase (0-24 hr post-chemotherapy).

RESULTS

Complete response rates (acute phase), evaluated in 318/320 randomised patients, were 84.6% and 85.9% for oral and IV PALO respectively. Non-inferiority was demonstrated; the two formulations showed similar efficacy/safety.

CONCLUSION

Non-inferiority of oral versus IV PALO in the acute phase was demonstrated in Chinese patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CTR20140711.

What the HEC? Clinician Adherence to Evidence-Based Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Background: Clinician adherence to antiemetic guidelines for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) remains poorly characterized. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate individual clinician adherence to HEC antiemetic guidelines. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients receiving HEC was conducted using the IBM Watson Explorys Electronic Health Record Database (2012–2018). HEC antiemetic guideline adherence was defined as prescription of triple prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1 RA], serotonin type-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone) at initiation of cisplatin or anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC). Clinicians who prescribed ≥5 HEC courses were included and individual guideline adherence was assessed, noting the number of prescribing clinicians with >90% adherence. Results: A total of 217 clinicians were identified who prescribed 2,543 cisplatin and 1,490 AC courses. Patients (N=4,033) were primarily women (63.3%) and chemotherapy-naïve (92%) with a mean age of 58.6 years. Breast (36%) and thoracic (19%) cancers were the most common tumor types. Guideline adherence rates of >90% were achieved by 35% and 58% of clinicians using cisplatin or AC, respectively. Omission of an NK1 RA was the most common practice of nonadherence. Variation in prophylaxis guideline adherence was considerable for cisplatin (mean, 71%; SD, 29%; coefficient of variation [CV], 0.40) and AC (mean, 84%; SD, 26%; CV, 0.31). Conclusions: Findings showed substantial gaps in clinician adherence to HEC CINV guidelines, including a high variability across clinicians. Clinicians should review their individual clinical practices and ensure adherence to evidence-based CINV guidelines to optimize patient care.

Oncologist perspectives on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) management and outcomes: A quantitative market research-based survey

Background

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing side effect that can negatively impact patients' quality of life and could discourage completion of chemotherapy, thereby affecting overall treatment outcomes. Although adherence to antiemetic guidelines can reduce CINV incidence in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, CINV control remains inadequate.

Aims

The objectives of this survey were to determine oncologists' practice patterns in CINV management, identify factors that contribute to antiemetic treatment failure, and determine the outcomes of uncontrolled CINV on health care resource utilisation and on patients' attitude towards chemotherapy.

Methods and results

Quantitative market research was performed using an online questionnaire. Responses from 300 European oncologists who prescribe antiemetics and see ≥50 patients/month were analysed. Results showed that the main reasons reported by oncologists for antiemetic treatment failure were underestimating the emetogenic potential of chemotherapy, utilising weaker antiemetic regimens than required, and patient non‐adherence because of administration mistakes or missed/delayed doses. Educational initiatives for the oncology multidisciplinary team may help improve guideline‐consistent prescribing. Also, the availability of simpler, more convenient antiemetic therapies may improve guideline adherence and patient compliance during home administration.

Conclusion

Achieving effective CINV control is a crucial goal to improve patients' quality of life, which should optimise chemotherapy outcomes, and would ultimately reduce health care costs.

Efficacy of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) across multiple cycles of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: A subanalysis from two phase III trials

OBJECTIVES

Breast cancer (BC) patients represent a high-risk population for experiencing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), since they frequently receive highly emetogenic anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based (AC) chemotherapy, and are often female and young, two predisposing risk factors for CINV. Guidelines recommend the combination of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA), 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT₃RA), and dexamethasone (DEX) for CINV prophylaxis in AC-treated patients. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of NEPA, a fixed combination of netupitant (NETU [NK₁RA]) and palonosetron (PALO [5-HT₃RA]) in BC patients from two phase III studies.

METHODS

Overall, 1460 BC patients received AC (Study 1) or non-AC (Study 2) therapy over 6060 cycles. Randomized patients received DEX with either NEPA or oral PALO (Study 1), or NEPA or aprepitant+oral PALO (Study 2) before chemotherapy.

RESULTS

In AC-receiving patients, overall complete response (CR) rates with NEPA+DEX were statistically significantly higher than oral PALO+DEX rates (cycles 1-4: 73.9% vs 65.9%, 80.0% vs 66.0%, 83.6% vs 69.9%, 83.6% vs 74.4%, respectively). Overall, no significant nausea (NSN) rates were also superior with NEPA+DEX vs oral PALO+DEX (respectively, 74.2%-79.9% vs 68.5%-74.9%). A greater proportion of NEPA+DEX patients experienced "no-impact-on-daily-life" due to CINV (78.4% vs 71.4%) in cycle 1. In non-AC-receiving patients, prophylaxis with NEPA+DEX resulted in high CR and NSN rates across 1-4 chemotherapy cycles; no formal comparison with the control arm was performed.

CONCLUSION

NEPA+DEX administered as a single dose is an effective option for preventing CINV in BC patients receiving AC and non-AC, across multiple chemotherapy cycles.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBERS

Study 1: NCT01339260, Study 2:NCT01376297.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Narrative Review to Inform Dietetics Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common symptoms experienced by patients with cancer that influence nutrition. They exert a detrimental effect on dietary intake, risk of malnutrition, and quality of life. Whereas CINV are primarily managed with medication, nutrition and dietetics practitioners play an important role in the management of CINV-related complications such as reduced dietary intake. This review discusses the burden of nausea and vomiting that patients with cancer can experience, including the effect on quality of life, nutritional status, and treatment outcomes. Implications for dietetics practice include the need to explore the nature of reported symptoms, identify predisposing risk factors, and to consider the use of a variety of interventions that are individualized to a patient's symptoms. There are little clinical data regarding effective dietetic interventions for nausea and vomiting. In summary, this review discusses dietetics-related issues surrounding CINV, including the pathophysiology, risk factors, prevalence, and both pharmacologic and dietetic treatment options.

Rolapitant for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a review of the clinical evidence

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), both acute and delayed, has a dramatic effect on the well-being and quality of life of patients with cancer. Improved understanding of the mechanisms involved in CINV has led to the development of agents targeting the 5-HT3 receptor as well as the NK-1 receptor. Antiemetic prophylaxis given to patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy combines agents blocking the 5-HT3 and NK-1 receptors along with corticosteroids given regularly and repeatedly. Rolapitant is a long-acting NK-1 receptor antagonist with proven efficacy in controlling CINV as part of the prophylaxis regimen. This review will detail the clinical efficacy and safety of rolapitant in the treatment of patients with cancer receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Personalized Estimate of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Development and External Validation of a Nomogram in Cancer Patients Receiving Highly/Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is presented in over 30% of cancer patients receiving highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC). The currently recommended antiemetic therapy is merely based on the emetogenic level of chemotherapy, regardless of patient's individual risk factors. It is, therefore, critical to develop an approach for personalized management of CINV in the era of precision medicine.A number of variables were involved in the development of CINV. In the present study, we pooled the data from 2 multi-institutional investigations of CINV due to HEC/MEC treatment in Asian countries. Demographic and clinical variables of 881 patients were prospectively collected as defined previously, and 862 of them had full documentation of variables of interest. The data of 548 patients from Chinese institutions were used to identify variables associated with CINV using multivariate logistic regression model, and then construct a personalized prediction model of nomogram; while the remaining 314 patients out of China (Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan) entered the external validation set. C-index was used to measure the discrimination ability of the model.The predictors in the final model included sex, age, alcohol consumption, history of vomiting pregnancy, history of motion sickness, body surface area, emetogenicity of chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimens. The C-index was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72) for the training set and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.58-0.72) for the validation set. The C-index was higher than that of any single predictor, including the emetogenic level of chemotherapy according to current antiemetic guidelines. Calibration curves showed good agreement between prediction and actual occurrence of CINV.This easy-to-use prediction model was based on chemotherapeutic regimens as well as patient's individual risk factors. The prediction accuracy of CINV occurrence in this nomogram was well validated by an independent data set. It could facilitate the assessment of individual risk, and thus improve the personalized management of CINV.

Olanzapine for treatment and prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children: a retrospective, multi-center review

BACKGROUND

This retrospective review provides preliminary data regarding the safety and efficacy of olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control in children.

PROCEDURE

Children <18 years old who received olanzapine for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control from December 2010 to August 2013 at four institutions were identified. Patient characteristics, chemotherapy, antiemetic prophylaxis, olanzapine dosing, CIV control, liver function test results and adverse events were abstracted from the health record. Toxicity was graded using CTCAEv4.03.

RESULTS

Sixty children (median age 13.2 years; range: 3.10-17.96) received olanzapine during 158 chemotherapy blocks. Olanzapine was most often (59%) initiated due to a history of poorly controlled CINV. The mean initial olanzapine dose was 0.1 mg/kg/dose (range: 0.026-0.256). Most children who received olanzapine beginning on the first day of the chemotherapy block experienced complete CIV control throughout the acute phase (83/128; 65%). There was no association between the olanzapine dose/kg and complete CIV control (OR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.999-1.020; P = 0.091). Sedation was reported in 7% of chemotherapy blocks and was significantly associated with increasing olanzapine dose (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.08-1.27; P = 0.0001). Of the 25 chemotherapy blocks where ALT and/or AST were reported more than once, grade 1-3 elevations were observed in five. The mean weight change in 31 children who received olanzapine during more than one chemotherapy block was 0% (range: -22 to +18).

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine may be an important option to improve CIV control in children. Prospective controlled evaluation of olanzapine for CINV prophylaxis in children is warranted.

Review of oral fixed-dose combination netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Current guidelines recommend the combination of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, together with corticosteroids, in order to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and it is to be considered with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a novel, highly selective NK1 RA, and palonosetron, a new-generation 5-HT3 RA, targeting two major emetic pathways in a single oral capsule. In clinical trials, NEPA administered on day 1 together with dexamethasone was highly effective and well tolerated in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with solid tumors undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. NEPA offers maximal convenience, and as a simple guideline-based regimen, has the potential to improve adherence to guidelines.

Impact of CINV in earlier cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles in Asia Pacific clinical practice

PURPOSE

We sought to describe the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in prior cycles on CINV and chemotherapy regimen modification in subsequent cycles.

METHODS

Eligible patients in this multinational prospective observational study were adults (≥18 years old) receiving their first single-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC). Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the impact of CINV in prior cycles on CINV in subsequent cycles. Other independent variables included in the model were the cycle number, age, sex, and emetogenicity of regimen.

RESULTS

There were 598 evaluable patients in cycle 2 and 533 in cycle 3, half receiving HEC and half MEC. Patients who experienced complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetics) in earlier cycles, relative to those with no complete response, had an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 5.9 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.14-8.50) for experiencing complete response in subsequent cycles. Prior CINV was a significant and consistent predictor of subsequent CINV for all CINV endpoints: for emesis, OR 12.7 (95% CI, 8.47-18.9), for clinically significant nausea, OR 7.9 (95% CI, 5.66-10.9), and for clinically significant nausea and/or vomiting, OR 7.2 (5.17-10.1). Modifications to chemotherapy were recorded for 26-29% of patients in cycles 2 and 3, with CINV as the major reason for the modification for 5-9% of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CINV in prior cycles was a strong and consistent predictor of CINV in subsequent cycles, while the incidence of chemotherapy regimen modification due to CINV was low in individual cycles.

Pooled analysis of phase III clinical studies of palonosetron versus ondansetron, dolasetron, and granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)

Purpose

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is integral to treatment success in patients with cancer. This analysis was undertaken to assess the relative efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus older 5HT₃ RAs in preventing CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Methods

Patient-level data from four randomized, double-blind, phase III trials comparing palonosetron 0.25 or 0.75 mg with ondansetron 32 mg, dolasetron 100 mg, or granisetron 40 μg/kg were analyzed. Endpoints included complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue antiemetics) in the acute (0–24 h), delayed (>24–120 h), and overall (0–120 h) postchemotherapy periods (primary), complete control (CC: no emesis, no rescue antiemetics, and no more than mild nausea), number of emetic episodes, and nausea severity.

Results

CR rates were significantly higher for palonosetron (n = 1,787) versus older 5HT₃ RAs (n = 1,175) in the delayed (57 vs 45 %, P < 0.0001) and overall periods (51 vs 40 %, P < 0.0001); odds ratios (95 % CI) in the acute, delayed, and overall periods were 1.15 (0.98–1.34), 1.62 (1.40–1.88), and 1.56 (1.34–1.81), respectively. Significant differences in CC rates and nausea severity were observed for the delayed and overall periods and in emetic episodes for all three periods. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar with palonosetron (0.25 mg, 20.0 %; 0.75 mg, 26.5 %) and older 5HT₃ RAs (27.5 %).

Conclusions

Palonosetron is more effective than older 5HT₃ RAs for controlling CINV in the delayed and overall postchemotherapy periods.

Ginger (Zingiber officinale) reduces acute chemotherapy-induced nausea: a URCC CCOP study of 576 patients

PURPOSE

Despite the widespread use of antiemetics, nausea continues to be reported by over 70% of patients receiving chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this double blind, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 744 cancer patients to four arms: 1) placebo, 2) 0.5 g ginger, 3) 1.0 g ginger, or 4) 1.5 g ginger. Nausea occurrence and severity were assessed at a baseline cycle and the two following cycles during which patients were taking their assigned study medication. All patients received a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist antiemetic on Day 1 of all cycles. Patients took three capsules of ginger (250 mg) or placebo twice daily for 6 days starting 3 days before the first day of chemotherapy. Patients reported the severity of nausea on a 7-point rating scale ("1" = "Not at all Nauseated" and "7" = "Extremely Nauseated") for Days 1-4 of each cycle. The primary outcomes were to determine the dose and efficacy of ginger at reducing the severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea on Day 1 of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 576 patients were included in final analysis (91% female, mean age = 53). Mixed model analyses demonstrated that all doses of ginger significantly reduced acute nausea severity compared to placebo on Day 1 of chemotherapy (p = 0.003). The largest reduction in nausea intensity occurred with 0.5 g and 1.0 g of ginger (p = 0.017 and p = 0.036, respectively). Anticipatory nausea was a key factor in acute chemotherapy-induced nausea (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Ginger supplementation at a daily dose of 0.5 g-1.0 g significantly aids in reduction of the severity of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea in adult cancer patients.

Palonosetron versus other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with hematologic malignancies treated with emetogenic chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient setting in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the rate of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists (RAs) in patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies (lymphoma and leukemia) and receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in a hospital outpatient setting.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years and diagnosed with hematologic malignancies initiating HEC or MEC and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) and other 5-HT₃ RAs (Group 2) for the first time in a hospital outpatient setting between 4/1/2007 and 3/31/2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective Database. Within each cycle, CINV events were identified (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) through ICD-9 codes for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion (from each CT administration day 1 until the end of the CT cycle), or use of rescue medications (day 2 until the end of the CT cycle). Negative binomial distribution generalized linear multivariate regression model estimating the CINV event rate on CT, specific CT cycles, and cancer diagnosis (leukemia/lymphoma)-matched groups in the follow-up period (first of 8 cycles or 6 months) was developed.

RESULTS

Of 971 identified patients, 211 initiated palonosetron (Group 1). Group 1 patients comprised of more females [50.2 vs. 41.4%; p = 0.0226], Whites [74.4 vs. 70.4%, and Hispanics [7.6 vs. 6.3%; all races p = 0.0105], received more HEC treatments [89.6 vs. 84.2%; all CT types p = 0.0129], and had more lymphoma diagnosed patients [89.6 vs. 76.3%; all cancer types p = 0.0033] at baseline. After controlling for differences in several demographic and clinical variables, the regression model predicted a 20.4% decrease in CINV event rate per CT cycle for Group 1 versus Group 2 patients. Study limitations include potential lack of generalizability, absence of data on certain confounders including alcohol consumption and prior history of motion sickness, potential underestimation of incidence of uncontrolled CINV, and inability to draw conclusions pertaining to cause and effect relationship.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective hospital study, patients with hematologic malignancies treated with HEC or MEC and initiated on antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron in the hospital outpatient setting were more likely to experience significantly lower CINV event rates (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) versus patients initiated on other 5-HT₃ RAs.