A randomized, double-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron alone and in combination with intravenous dexamethasone in the prevention of high-dose cisplatin-induced emesis

Supportive medication in cancer during pregnancy

While pregnancy-related malignancies are quite rare, their incidence is increasing and thus affecting more and more women nowadays. Their management, however, with both chemotherapy and supportive agents remains quite challenging and it seems crucial to define the optimal treatment for this special population. Concerning supportive medication, it is clinically significant to determine whether commonly used agents, including Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors, Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, Bisphosphonates, Anticoagulation agents, Antiemetics and Glucocorticoids are indeed effective in ameliorating chemotherapy side effects. Meanwhile, it is of great importance that the administration of any of these agents is safe for both mother and fetus. This review aims to provide a précis of the current literature regarding both safety and efficacy of all categories of supportive medication during pregnancy.

The effects of ondansetron versus dexamethasone on electrocardiographic markers of ventricular repolarization in children undergoing cochlear implant

INTRODUCTION

Congenital hearing loss is associated with cardiac rhythm disturbances namely long Q-T syndrome. This study was designed to investigate the effect of anti-emetic doses of ondansetron and dexamethasone on ECG recordings in children undergoing cochlear implant surgery.

METHODS

Sixty-three pediatric patients scheduled for elective cochlear implantation were enrolled in the study. Two patients were excluded as their baseline ECG showed long QT syndrome. Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl, propofol and atracurium and maintained with propofol. Dexamethasone 0.1 mg.kg^-1or ondansetron 0.2 mg.kg^-1was randomly administered for the participants approximately 30 min before the end of surgery. ECG recording was performed 15 min after induction of anesthesia and 15 min after dexamethasone/ondansetron administration. RR interval, QRS duration, QT interval, and Tp-e interval were measured by a blinded cardiologist.

RESULTS

Ondansetron resulted in no significant changes in RR, JTc and QTc intervals; while prolongedTp-e interval. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that use of ondansetron was an independent predictor of QTc prolongation after adjustment for age, gender and baseline QTc (OR = 17.94, CI 95% 1.97-168.70, p = 0.011). The incidence of postoperative retching/vomiting in ondansetron group was significantly lower than dexamethasone group. (3.2% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

The risk of arrhythmias with the use of ondansetron in otherwise healthy candidates of cochlear implant is very low. However, the drug may induce significant changes in ECG parameters. The clinical significance of these changes in patients with cardiac conduction abnormalities should be investigated in further studies.

Latest Update on Prevention of Acute Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common cause of acute morbidity that impacts quality of life in children receiving cancer treatment. Here, we review the evolution of CINV prophylaxis guidelines in children, with an emphasis on the literature published in the last 5 years, to bring the reader up to date.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have led to the adoption of the "triple therapy" regimen of antiemetic prophylaxis (a 5-HT3 antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin-1 antagonist) as the backbone of recommendations for the prevention of CINV in children. Areas of new data include the addition of aprepitant and inclusion of palonosetron as a non-inferior 5-HT3 antagonist. In addition, there are emerging pediatric data informing patient-derived risk factors associated with CINV risk and classification of antineoplastic drugs based on emetogenicity. Several recent pediatric studies have shaped published guidelines for CINV prophylaxis in children.

A Randomized Open-Label Parallel-Group Study Comparing Ondansetron with Ondansetron plus Dexamethasone in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Receiving High-Dose Epirubicin. A Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group Study

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of this multicenter randomized, open-label, parallel-group study was to assess whether the addition of low-dose dexamethasone to ondansetron results in improved control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in patients undergoing first-line chemotherapy with high-dose epirubicin.

METHODS & STUDY DESIGN

Patients were randomized to receive either 24 mg of ondansetron or 24 mg of ondansetron plus 8 mg of dexamethasone administered as an intravenous infusion 30 minutes prior to administration of chemotherapy. Both groups of patients received 8 mg of ondansetron given orally from day 2 to 5 two times daily. Fifty-three patients received ondansetron and 50 received ondansetron plus dexamethasone. The patients recorded nausea and the number of vomits and retches daily on diary cards.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients in the ondansetron plus dexamethasone group experienced neither vomiting nor retching during the first day of the first course of chemotherapy compared to those receiving ondansetron alone (79.6% vs 53.8%, P = 0.0062). Furthermore, there was a trend in favor of ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the control of nausea. There was no statistically significant difference between ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron alone in protecting patients from emesis between days 2 and 5 of the first course of chemotherapy (66.7% vs 62.7%, P = 0.68). This was probably due to the small sample size. Ondansetron was well tolerated, with 15 patients (15%) reporting adverse events such as headache or constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that ondansetron given intravenously in combination with dexamethasone is more effective than ondansetron alone in the control of acute emesis in patients undergoing their first course of chemotherapy with high-dose epirubicin. No difference between the regimens was found with regard to nausea and delayed emesis control.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy: A hospital-based, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Optimal prevention of chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) has not been established for patients receiving cisplatin in divided doses. The aim of this study was to describe the incidence and risk factors of CIV in children who received multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy.

PROCEDURE

A total of 24 consecutive pediatric patients (age 0-19 years) who received multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy in our hospital were enrolled. Patients with relapsed disease or primary intracranial tumor and those who received concurrent radiation therapy were excluded. The number of chemotherapy cycles reviewed was 107, with a median of five per patient. All patients received granisetron. Dexamethasone and NK-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RA) were used as additional antiemetics for prophylaxis of CIV.

RESULTS

CIV was observed in 22 of 24 (92%) patients, and 61 of 107 (57%) cycles. Patients who developed CIV had a higher incidence of other chemotherapy-related adverse events (87 vs. 41%, P < 0.001). The incidence of CIV was lower in patients administered with NK1RA than those without (32 vs. 68%, P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression identified age less than or equal to 2 years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10-0.63) and administration of NK1RA (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.06-0.43) as independent factors for CIV.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that NK1RA is crucial to reduce CIV in children who receive multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy.

The anti-asthmatic drug pranlukast suppresses the delayed-phase vomiting and reverses intracellular indices of emesis evoked by cisplatin in the least shrew (Cryptotis parva)

The introduction of second generation serotonin 5-HT₃ receptor (5-HT₃) antagonist palonosetron combined with long-acting substance P neurokinin NK₁ receptor (NK₁) antagonists (e.g. netupitant) has substantially improved antiemetic therapy against early- and delayed-phases of emesis caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapeutics such as cisplatin. However, the improved efficacy comes at a cost that many patients cannot afford. We introduce a new class of antiemetic, the antiasthmatic leukotriene CysLT1 receptor antagonist pranlukast for the suppression of cisplatin-evoked vomiting. Pranlukast (10mg/kg) by itself significantly reduced the mean frequency of vomits (70%) and fully protected least shrews from vomiting (46%) during the delayed-phase of cisplatin (10mg/kg)-evoked vomiting. Although, pranlukast tended to substantially reduce both the mean frequency of vomits and the number of shrews vomiting during the early-phase, these reductions failed to attain significance. When combined with a first (tropisetron)- or a second (palonosetron)-generation 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, pranlukast potentiated their antiemetic efficacy during both phases of vomiting. In addition, pranlukast by itself prevented several intracellular signal markers of cisplatin-evoked delayed-vomiting such as phosphorylation of ERK1/2 and PKA. When pranlukast was combined with either palonosetron or tropisetron, these combinations suppressed the evoked phosphorylation of: i) ERK1/2 during both acute- and delayed-phase, ii) PKCα/β at the peak acute-phase, and iii) PKA at the peak delayed-phase. The current and our published findings suggest that overall behavioral and intracellular signaling effects of pranlukast via blockade of CysLT1 receptors generally appear to be similar to the NK₁ receptor antagonist netupitant with some differences.

Aprepitant in pediatric patients using moderate and highly emetogenic protocols: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To review the efficacy and safety of aprepitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone (triple therapy) in children and adolescents on moderate to highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Scielo, Lilacs, Cochrane and congress abstracts published until September 2016 were used as data sources. Two reviewers independently selected manuscripts and extracted data. A third reviewer solved discrepancies in study selection and data extraction. The primary outcome was overall complete response (no vomiting from 0 to 120 h). Secondary outcomes were: response in acute phase, delayed phase and reported toxicities. Each study was considered a unit of analysis. Summarized relative risks were recalculated based on reported data. All meta-analyses used a random-effects model and heterogeneity was reported using the I2 method.

RESULTS

From 1004 studies, we screened 288 titles and abstracts and included three trials for data extraction. The population comprised 451 patients. Most patients were males, ranging from 6 months to 19 years of age, and weighing from 6 to 134 kg. Bone cancer was the most incident (≥50%) neoplasm, followed by rhabdomyosarcoma and Hodgkin's lymphoma. Triple therapy was associated with a reduced risk of developing chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) (RR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.34-0.67). There were no differences in incidence of febrile neutropenia between groups (RR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.66-1.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Triple therapy decreased CIV risk, without increasing the occurrence of febrile neutropenia. However, this review could not address which subpopulations would most benefit from using this strategy. Future studies should focus on assessing risk factors for nausea and vomiting, as many patients did not achieve a complete antiemetic response.

Profile of Antiemetic Activity of Netupitant Alone or in Combination with Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in Ferrets and Suncus murinus (House Musk Shrew)

Background and Aims: Chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis involves the activation of multiple pathways, with 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT; serotonin) playing a major role in the initial response. Substance P tachykinin NK₁ receptor antagonists can reduce emesis induced by disparate emetic challenges and therefore have a clinical utility as broad inhibitory anti-emetic drugs. In the present studies, we investigate the broad inhibitory anti-emetic profile of a relatively new NK₁ receptor antagonist, netupitant, alone or in combination with the long acting 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, palonosetron, for a potential to reduce emesis in ferrets and shrews.

Materials and Methods: Ferrets were pretreated with netupitant and/or palonosetron, and then administered apomorphine (0.125 mg/kg, s.c.), morphine (0.5 mg/kg, s.c.), ipecacuanha (1.2 mg/kg, p.o.), copper sulfate (100 mg/kg, intragastric), or cisplatin (5–10 mg/kg, i.p.); in other studies netupitant was administered to Suncus murinus before motion (4 cm horizontal displacement, 2 Hz for 10 min).

Results: Netupitant (3 mg/kg, p.o.) abolished apomorphine-, morphine-, ipecacuanha- and copper sulfate-induced emesis. Lower doses of netupitant (0.03–0.3 mg/kg, p.o.) dose-dependently reduced cisplatin (10 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced emesis in an acute (8 h) model, and motion-induced emesis in S. murinus. In a ferret cisplatin (5 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced acute and delayed emesis model, netupitant administered once at 3 mg/kg, p.o., abolished the first 24 h response and reduced the 24–72 h response by 94.6%; the reduction was markedly superior to the effect of a three times per day administration of ondansetron (1 mg/kg, i.p.). A single administration of netupitant (1 mg/kg, p.o.) plus palonosetron (0.1 mg/kg, p.o.) combined with dexamethasone (1 mg/kg, i.p., once per day), also significantly antagonized cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis and was comparable with a once-daily regimen of ondansetron (1 mg/kg, p.o.) plus aprepitant (1 mg/kg, p.o.) in combination with dexamethasone (1 mg/kg, i.p.).

Conclusion: In conclusion, netupitant has potent and long lasting anti-emetic activity against a number of emetic challenges indicating broad inhibitory properties. The convenience of protection afforded by the single dosing of netupitant together with palonosetron was demonstrated and also is known to provide an advantage over other therapeutic strategies to control emesis in man.

Management of platinum-based chemotherapy-induced acute nausea and vomiting: is there a superior serotonin receptor antagonist?

Objective. The last decade has witnessed the great impact of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor (5-HT3) antagonists in revolutionizing the management of platinum-based chemotherapy–induced acute nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, despite the availability of a variety of 5-HT3 antagonists, little data is published to support superiority of one drug over another, leaving the choice of serotonin receptor antagonist largely empirical. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for management of chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting clearly endorse the use of serotonin receptor antagonist; however, no single agent is preferred over the rest.

Methods. Data for patients (n¼159) receiving platinum-based chemotherapy regimens were retrospectively collected. Patients getting 5-HT3 antagonists without steroids or those with known history of brain metastasis, gastroparesis, and intestinal obstruction were not eligible for the study. Patient characteristics including age, gender, primary diagnosis, history of heavy alcohol intake, chemotherapy regimen administered, number of cycles, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at the start of therapy were noted. Primary outcome was the complete control of platinum-induced acute nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcome measures included control of >grade 1 nausea or vomiting, comparison of two doses of dexamethasone, and antiemetic efficacy among various platinum drugs. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0 was used to assess toxicity.

Results. A total of 126 patients received 369 cycles of platinum-based therapy. Dolasetron (n¼157), granisetron (n¼81), and ondansetron (n¼131) achieved complete control of vomiting in 89.8, 95.5, and 92.3% (p¼0.67) of cycles, respectively. Respectively, complete nausea control was observed in 68.1, 75.3 and, 69.4% (p¼0.50). Dexamethasone 20 mg was not superior to 10 mg in complete control of nausea and vomiting (p¼0.15 and p¼0.63, respectively). However, complete nausea control was significantly better in the subgroup of patients getting cisplatin-compared with carboplatin-based regimens (78.8% vs. 67.7%, p50.05).

Conclusion. No significant difference exists in the antiemetic efficacy of the three 5-HT3 antagonists studied in controlling CINV when administered in combination with dexamethasone. Choice of antiemetic regimen should therefore be based on drug cost.

Phase II study of fosaprepitant + 5HT3 receptor antagonist + dexamethasone in patients with germ cell tumors undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a Hoosier Cancer Research Network study

PURPOSE

A phase III study adding aprepitant to a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) plus dexamethasone in germ cell tumor (GCT) patients treated with 5-day cisplatin combination chemotherapy demonstrated a significant improvement in complete response (CR) (J Clin Onc 30:3998-4003, 2012). Fosaprepitant has demonstrated non-inferiority compared to aprepitant in single-day cisplatin chemotherapy and is approved as a single-dose alternative. This single-arm phase II study is the first clinical trial evaluating fosaprepitant in patients receiving multi-day cisplatin regimen.

METHODS

GCT patients receiving a 5-day cisplatin combination chemotherapy were enrolled. Fosaprepitant 150 mg was given IV on days 3 and 5. A 5HT3-RA days 1-5 (days 1, 3, and 5, if palonosetron) plus dexamethasone 20 mg days 1 and 2 and 4 mg po bid days 6, 7, and 8 was administered. Rescue antiemetics were allowed. The primary objective was to determine the CR rate-no emetic episodes or use of rescue medications. Accrual of 64 patients was planned with expected CR > 27 %.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were enrolled of whom 54 were eligible for analysis. Median age was 33. Fifty-one patients received bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) chemotherapy. CR was observed in 13 (24.1 %) patients (95 % Agresti-Coull binomial C.I. 14.5 %, 37.1 %).

CONCLUSION

The data in this phase II study, in contrast to our prior phase III study, appears to indicate a lower CR rate with the substitution of fosaprepitant for aprepitant. It is unknown whether the substitution of fosaprepitant for aprepitant provides the same benefit in multi-day cisplatin that was achieved with single-day cisplatin. Trial registration Clinical trial information NCT01736917.

Management of Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients on Multiday Cisplatin Based Combination Chemotherapy

Introduction of cisplatin based chemotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of germ cell tumors. A common side effect of multiday cisplatin chemotherapy is severe nausea and vomiting. Considerable progress has been made in the control of these side effects since the introduction of cisplatin based chemotherapy in the 1970s. Germ cell tumor which is a model for a curable neoplasm has also turned into an excellent testing ground to develop effective strategies to prevent chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in multiday cisplatin based regimens. The use of combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine (HT)3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonist, and dexamethasone has greatly improved our ability to prevent and control acute and delayed CINV. Mechanism and pattern of CINV with multiday chemotherapy may differ from those in single day chemotherapy and therefore efficacy of antiemetic drugs as observed in single day chemotherapy may not be applicable. There are only few randomized clinical trials with special emphasis on multiday chemotherapy. Further studies are essential to determine the efficacy, optimal dose, and duration of the newer agents and combinations in multiday cisplatin based chemotherapy.

Olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

CONTEXT

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can severely impair patients' quality of life (QOL). Psychotropics, especially olanzapine, have a strong antiemetic effect.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether olanzapine could reduce the frequency of CINV and improve patients' QOL during chemotherapy.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Forty-four patients scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy were enrolled. All patients received a 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonist, steroid, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist. Patients were randomly assigned to take 5 mg/day of oral olanzapine (OL group, n = 22) or placebo (control group, n = 22) daily from the day before chemotherapy (Day 0) to Day 5. The primary endpoint was the rate of patients who achieved total control (no vomiting, no use of rescue medications, and maximum nausea of <5/100mm on a visual analogue scale). The secondary endpoint was Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire score on Days 0 and 6.

RESULTS

The rate of patients achieving total control was significantly higher in the OL group (86% and 64% in acute and delayed phases, respectively) than in the control group (55% and 23%, P = 0.045, P = 0.014, respectively). Furthermore, the OL group experienced a better QOL than the control group, as reported on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire (P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

The addition of 5mg/day of oral olanzapine to standard therapy can reduce the frequency of CINV and improve QOL of patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Short-term corticosterone treatment decreases the early CD8+ T cell response to simian virus 40 tumor antigen but has no impact on the late CD8+ T cell response

CD8+ T cells (T(CD8)) help control tumor growth in vivo through recognition of distinct tumor antigens and cytolysis of tumor cells. The T(CD8) immune response in C57BL/6 mice to the Simian Virus 40 oncoprotein, large tumor antigen (Tag), targets multiple epitopes and is well-characterized. Epitope IV, an H-2K(b)-restricted epitope, is immunodominant while epitope I, an H-2D(b)-restricted epitope is subdominant. GCs alter many aspects of T cell function. Indeed, the current studies demonstrate that exposure of mice to the immunosuppressive GC, corticosterone (CORT), over the entire course of the primary immune response limits activation of endogenous Tag-specific T(CD8). Even short-term CORT treatment from day -1 to day +2 post-immunization significantly reduced splenic size and the absolute number of Tag-specific T(CD8) on day 6 post-immunization. In vivo killing activity was also reduced. However, by day 10 post-immunization, the peak of the immune response, the absolute number of Tag-specific T(CD8) and their in vivo killing of epitope I or epitope IV-expressing target cells had recovered in CORT treated mice. Adoptive transfer of transgenic T cells post-CORT removal demonstrated that CORT decreased the ability of the endogenous antigen-presenting cells to induce proliferation of the exogenous transgenic T cells. Combined, these studies have implications about the timing of clinical steroid treatment relative to immunization or adoptive transfer for cancer immunotherapy.

Safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of single-dose fosaprepitant regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a crucial factor in ensuring that patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy can get the full benefit of therapy. Current antiemetic guidelines recommend that the neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonist aprepitant should be used as part of a combination regimen with dexamethasone and a serotonin receptor antagonist for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Fosaprepitant is a water-soluble N-phosphoryl derivative of aprepitant that, when infused, is rapidly metabolized back to an active aprepitant. The existing literature in PubMed about fosaprepitant was screened and selected in order to address the emerging data from two randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of a single-dose fosaprepitant regimen. These phase III trials demonstrated that fosaprepitant given as a single intravenous dose of 150 mg was either noninferior to the conventional 3-day aprepitant or significantly superior to placebo for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. In both trials, fosaprepitant was well tolerated although more frequent infusion-site adverse events were observed with fosaprepitant. The new dosage regimen of fosaprepitant, therefore, would be an option for CINV control in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The clinical efficacy is consistent with the findings from a time-on-target, positron-emission tomography study evaluating the NK-1R occupancy in the central nervous system (CNS) over 5 days after a single-dose infusion of 150 mg fosaprepitant in healthy participants. The single-dose regimen is capable of blocking more than 90% of the NK-1Rs in the CNS for at least 48 hours after infusion, which is sufficient to control delayed CINV for 2 to 5 days after HEC. The new dosage regimen of fosaprepitant can provide a simplified treatment option that maintains high protection while ensuring adherence to scheduled antiemetic medication throughout most of the 5-day period encompassing the major risk for CINV.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Cross-Over Study Evaluating the Oral Neurokinin-1 Antagonist Aprepitant in Combination With a 5HT3 Receptor Antagonist and Dexamethasone in Patients With Germ Cell Tumors Receiving 5-Day Cisplatin Combination Chemotherapy Regimens: A Hoosier Oncology Group Study

Purpose

Aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA), and dexamethasone are standard antiemetic therapy for prevention of single-day, cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III cross-over study that compared aprepitant to placebo combined with standard antiemetic prophylaxis (a 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) in patients receiving 5 days of cisplatin combination chemotherapy for testicular cancer.

Patients and Methods

Patients receiving two consecutive identical courses of a 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned to aprepitant 125 mg on day 3 and 80 mg per day on days 4 through 7 or to placebo with the initial course and crossover to the opposite treatment with the second course. The primary objective was complete response (CR). Secondary end points were emetic episodes (acute and delayed), nausea measurement based on a visual analog scale (VAS), and patient-stated preference after the second study cycle.

Results

In all, 71 patients were screened for the study and 69 were evaluable. Thirty-five patients were randomly assigned to receive aprepitant and 34 to receive placebo for the first course. Forty-two percent achieved CR with aprepitant compared with 13% with placebo (P < .001). Eleven patients (16.2%) had at least one emetic episode during the aprepitant cycle versus 32 patients (47.1%) with placebo. Thirty-eight patients preferred the aprepitant cycle whereas 11 preferred placebo (P < .001). There was no statistical difference in VAS for nausea, but it was numerically superior with aprepitant. There was no toxicity with aprepitant compared with placebo.

Conclusion

There was a significant improvement in CR rate with aprepitant combined with a 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone. Patient preference strongly favored the aprepitant cycle.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The addition of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R) antagonists to antiemetic regimens has substantially reduced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We sought to systematically review the overall impact of NK1R antagonists on CINV prevention.

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, and meeting proceedings for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated NK1R antagonists plus standard antiemetic therapy for CINV prevention. Complete response (CR) to therapy was defined as the absence of emesis and the absence of rescue therapy. The endpoints were defined as CR in the overall phase (during the first 120 hours of chemotherapy), CR in the acute phase (first 24 hours), and the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after chemotherapy, nausea, and toxicity. Subgroup analyses evaluated the type of NK1R antagonist used, the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapy regimen, and prolonged use of 5-HT3 (serotonin) receptor antagonists, a class of standard antiemetic agents. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical tests for heterogeneity were one-sided; statistical tests for effect estimates and publication bias were two-sided.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials (8740 patients) were included in this analysis. NK1R antagonists increased the CR rate in the overall phase from 54% to 72% (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.57, P < .001). CR and nausea were improved in all phases and subgroups. The expected side effects from NK1R antagonists did not statistically significantly differ from previous reports; however, this analysis suggests that the incidence of severe infection increased from 2% to 6% in the NK1R antagonist group (three RCTs with a total of 1480 patients; OR = 3.10; 95% CI = 1.69 to 5.67, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

NK1R antagonists increased CINV control in the acute, delayed, and overall phases. They are effective for both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Their use might be associated with increased infection rates; however, additional appraisal of specific data from RCTs is needed.

Steroids for improving recovery following tonsillectomy in children

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 2003.Tonsillectomy continues to be one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. Despite advances in anesthetic and surgical techniques, post-tonsillectomy morbidity remains a significant clinical problem.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical efficacy of a single intraoperative dose of dexamethasone in reducing post-tonsillectomy morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN; and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 29 October 2010, following a previous search in September 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of a single dose of intravenous, intraoperative corticosteroid for pediatric patients (age < 18 years) who underwent tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The first author extracted data regarding the primary outcome measures and measurement tools from the published studies. The first author also recorded data regarding study design, patient ages, procedures performed, dose of corticosteroid and method of delivery, as well as methodological quality. When data were missing from the original publications, we contacted the authors for more information. We performed data analysis with a random-effects model, using the RevMan 5.1 software developed by the Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies (1756 participants). We selected only randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded studies to minimize inclusion of poor quality studies. However, the risk of bias in the included studies was not formally assessed. Children receiving a single intraoperative dose of dexamethasone (dose range = 0.15 to 1.0 mg/kg) were half as likely to vomit in the first 24 hours compared to children receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.58; P < 0.00001). Routine use in five children would be expected to result in one less patient experiencing post-tonsillectomy emesis (risk difference (RD) -0.24; 95% CI -0.32 to -0.15; P < 0.00001). Children receiving dexamethasone were also more likely to advance to a soft/solid diet on post-tonsillectomy day one (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.83; P = 0.001) than those receiving placebo. Finally, postoperative pain was improved in children receiving dexamethasone as measured by a visual analog scale (VAS, 0 to 10) (MD -1.07; 95% CI -1.73 to -0.41; P = 0.001), which correlates clinically to a reduction in pain (on a VAS of 0 to 10) from 4.72 to 3.65. No adverse events were noted in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that a single intravenous dose of dexamethasone is an effective, safe and inexpensive treatment for reducing morbidity from pediatric tonsillectomy.

Inhibiting substance p pathway for prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis: preclinical data, clinical trials of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists

Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic agents that have activity in controlling cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis. Preclinical data in animal models show that the NK-1 receptor antagonists have broad antiemetic activity. The NK-1 receptor antagonists have activity in controlling emesis induced by peripherally acting and centrally acting emetogens, suggesting a mechanism of action at multiple sites. The effects at central and peripheral sites to control acute and delayed emesis cannot be determined at this time based on available studies. When added to a standard regimen of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5- HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, the NK-1 receptor antagonists improve control of acute emesis. The NK-1 receptor antagonists improve delayed emesis compared with placebo, and when used in combination with dexamethasone, compared with dexamethasone alone. Acute and delayed nausea may also be improved by the NK-1 receptor antagonists when they are used in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone prechemotherapy or with daily dosing for 5 days after chemotherapy. The current data suggest that the mechanism of action of the NK-1 receptor antagonists appears to be different from that of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Future studies may consider using NK-1 receptor antagonists with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as well as bone marrow transplantation.

Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron plus dexamethasone with or without metoclopramide as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin in medical practice

PURPOSES

Ondansetron plus dexamethasone are standard antiemetic agents for highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Metoclopramide is a dopamine antagonist, which may enhance efficacy of ondansetron and dexamethasone. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of metoclopramide added to standard antiemetic regimen for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis.

METHODS

Patients who received ≥50 mg/m(2) of cisplatin for the first time were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1 and were randomized to receive either standard antiemetics (ondansetron 8 mg orally bid on days 2-5 and dexamethasone 8 mg orally bid on days 2-4) plus metoclopramide 20 mg orally qid on days 2-5 or a placebo. The primary endpoint was a complete response (CR) rate defined as no emesis and no rescue treatment over a 120-h period. Secondary endpoints included severity of nausea and vomiting, time to first emesis, quality of life, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Among 162 patients, 50 patients (60%) in the metoclopramide group and 42 patients (53%) in the control group achieved CR (p = 0.36). The mean times to first emesis in the metoclopramide and control groups were 88 and 75 h, respectively (p = 0.18). The degrees of nausea and vomiting in both groups were similar. Eleven patients (13%) in the metoclopramide group and 20 (25%) in the control group required rescue treatment (p = 0.05). Quality of life and adverse effects were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The addition of metoclopramide to ondansetron plus dexamethasone reduced the use of rescue medication, but did not affect complete response rate, quality of life or adverse effects.

Gabapentin for the prevention of chemotherapy- induced nausea and vomiting: a pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing side effect that affects many patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy, despite the use of antiemetic medications. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gabapentin for the prevention of CINV during the first cycle of treatment in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Eighty chemotherapy-naive patients, scheduled to receive moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, were enrolled in this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. All patients received intravenous ondansetron 8 mg, dexamethasone 10 mg and ranitidine 50 mg before chemotherapy on day 1 and oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice a day on days 2 and 3. Patients were randomly assigned to take gabapentin 300 mg or placebo on the following schedule: 5 and 4 days before chemotherapy once daily, 3 and 2 days before chemotherapy twice daily, 1 day before to 5 days after chemotherapy thrice daily. The primary endpoint was complete overall protection from both vomiting and nausea over the course of the entire study (day 1 through day 5), and complete protection during the delayed period (24-120 h after chemotherapy).

RESULTS

The proportion of patients achieving complete response improved from 40% to 62.5%, (p = 0.04) when comparing the control group and the gabapentin group, respectively. In the subset of patients who achieved complete control in the acute phase, the percentage of patients who achieved delayed complete control was higher in the gabapentin group (89.3 × 60.7%, p = 0.01). Adverse events did not significantly differ between study arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin is a low-cost strategy to improve complete control of CINV, specially delayed CINV control.

Differential time course of action of 5-HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists when used with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC)

BACKGROUND

Cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) displays a biphasic pattern of emesis with both an early and delayed period. In contrast, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has a monophasic pattern. The objective of this analysis was to further investigate the impact of the NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant on these patterns.

METHODS

Three phase III HEC (patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy) and one phase III MEC (breast cancer patients scheduled to receive anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)) trials of aprepitant were included. In all studies, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron plus dexamethasone) or the standard regimen (ondansetron plus dexamethasone). The exact dosing regimen for ondansetron and dexamethasone was different in each study. In a post hoc analysis, multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on first emesis at different time intervals after chemotherapy.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred twenty-seven patients and 856 patients were randomized and assessed for efficacy in the HEC and MEC trials, respectively. For HEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-77% vs. standard regimen, beginning 15-18 h after cisplatin and extending to 60 h. For MEC, aprepitant reduced the risk of first emesis by 38-61% vs. active control, beginning 3 h after AC and for up to 12 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Time of onset and duration of enhanced control of emesis with the addition of aprepitant differed between HEC and MEC. This suggests that the pattern of NK1-sensitive mechanisms may vary for different chemotherapy regimens.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: antiemetic trials that impacted clinical practice

Objective. To review the scientific evidence related to serotonin and substance P and the clinical impact targeting these two neurotransmitters have had managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Data Source. A PubMed search (January 1968 to December 2008), restricted to English-language publications, was conducted using the key words antiemetics, cancer chemotherapy, cisplatin, serotonin, substance P, NK1, and 5-HT3. Abstracts emanating from the meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer during the period May 2000 to June 2008 were also reviewed.

Data Synthesis. Two important outcomes emanated from well-conducted antiemetic clinical trials (Table 1): first, evidence that serotonin and substance P are major mediators of acute and delayed symptoms and second, improved, though not complete, control of CINV.

Conclusion. Serotonin-type 3 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are the most effective agents currently available. In most cases, these agents are used in conjunction with glucocorticoids. The use of these three types of agents is incorporated into current clinical practice guidelines. Further understanding of the biological and biochemical basis of nausea and vomiting may enhance management of this potentially debilitating adverse effect.

Determination of optimum dosage of intraoperative single dose dexamethasone in pediatric tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy

OBJECTIVE

Our objective is to determine the optimum dosage of intraoperative single dose dexamethasone and its effect upon postoperative morbidity in pediatric tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy patients.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Totally 150 pediatric patients whom underwent adenotonsillectomy or tonsillectomy surgery are offered to participate in this study at otorhinolaryngology clinic between 2002 and 2003. 150 patients are divided into three randomized groups, each composed of fifty patients. Anesthesia protocol is standardized in each group and 0.2 mg/kg intraoperative dexamethasone is given to first group, 0.7 mg/kg (maximum dose 25 mg) intraoperative dexamethasone is given to second group and third group is accepted as control group without giving any intravenous dexamethasone. Each group is compared for postoperative nausea, vomiting and tolerability to take oral foods within first 24h with the same questionnaire.

RESULTS

There is significantly higher ratio of postoperative nausea and vomiting within first 24h in group III (80%) when compared with group I (8%) (p: 0.001; p<0.01) and group II (4%) (p: 0.001; p<0.01). Also there is significantly higher ratio of patient's tolerability to take oral semisolid/solid foods within postoperative first 24h in group II (94%) when compared with group I (58%) (p: 0.001; p<0.01) and group III (12%) (p: 0.001; p<0.01). We didn't encounter any side effect of dexamethasone in group I and II.

CONCLUSIONS

We thought that 0.7 mg/kg dosage of IV dexamethasone is much a preferable choice depending of its effectiveness on decreasing postoperative morbidity rather than 0.2 mg/kg dosage and beside to this advantage we didn't encounter any side effects.

Casopitant improves the quality of life in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is critical in preventing poor health outcomes and increasing patient quality of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the addition of casopitant to dual-combination therapy of dexamethasone and ondansetron on quality of life in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, add-on trial (N = 810), patients were randomized to intravenous (IV) ondansetron/dexamethasone alone (control) or in combination with either a single 150-mg oral dose of casopitant or 3-day IV/oral casopitant. Quality of life was assessed as impact of nausea and vomiting on daily life using the Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire at baseline prior to receiving chemotherapy and after completion of the first cycle of HEC.

RESULTS

Patients in the single oral dose and 3-day IV/oral casopitant groups scored higher mean total FLIE scores (115.7 and 114.0, respectively; p ≤ 0.0332) than patients in the control group (107.5), indicating that casopitant patients experienced less impact from nausea and vomiting on daily life. The overall absolute difference in the proportion of patients reporting CINV with no impact on daily life between the single oral casopitant group and the control group was 13%; the difference between the 3-day IV/oral casopitant group and the control group was 14%.

CONCLUSION

The addition of casopitant to ondansetron and dexamethasone in patients receiving HEC was significantly more effective in reducing the impact of nausea and vomiting on all daily life activities as assessed by the FLIE compared with ondansetron/dexamethasone dual therapy.

[Management of chemotherapy-induced emesis: what is the standard after 20 years of clinical research]

BACKGROUND

The knowledge of the importance, the physiopathological mechanisms, and the management of the chemotherapy-induced emesis has increased exponentially during the last 20 years. High-dosage metoclopramide (MCP) therapy has been introduced in the eighties and serotonine type-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) have been used since the late eighties and early nineties. Due to both classes of substances the results of the antiemetic therapies have improved drastically. After 20 years of intensive clinical research it seems to be appropriate to come to an intermediate conclusion.

METHOD

With the aid of an overview and a new analysis of the literature published on this topic so far, the current state of research is shown (including the fields in which further improvement will be necessary), and suggestions are made, wherever it seemed possible, to attain the "gold standard" in antiemetic therapy.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In connection with all highly or very highly emetogenic chemotherapies, an antiemetic prophylaxis should be initiated on the day of therapy, especially when using platinum or most of the cyclophosphamide-based regimes for cancer treatment. The recommended prophylaxis consists of a combination of 5-HT(3) antagonists with a corticosteroid. To combat the so-called delayed emesis on the days following therapy, all patients should undergo an oral corticoid therapy, possibly in combination with MCP (especially platinum-therapy patients), less frequently with 5-HT(3) antagonists. With these means of prophylaxis emesis can be prevented/avoided completely in most patients, and nausea can at least be reduced. It is sufficient to administer a single dose of 5-HT(3) antagonists prior to chemotherapy. For ondansetron and granisetron, the best documented substances within this class of drugs, 8 mg (ondansteron) and 3 mg (granisetron) are considered standard dosages. Among the corticoids, most data have been accumulated for dexamethasone. A standard dose of 10 to 20 mg can be administered prior to chemotherapy. Right after and especially on the days following chemotherapy higher dosages seem to be indicated.

PROSPECT

Further therapy improvements, especially concerning emesis and nausea on the days following chemotherapy, are necessary and are currently object of clinical research.

A phase II study of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

This is a randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of palonosetron, in combination with dexamethasone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We randomized 233 patients to receive palonosetron as a single i.v. bolus dose of 0.075, 0.25, or 0.75 mg before administration of HEC. Dexamethasone (12-16 mg i.v. on day 1, 8 mg i.v. on day 2, and 4-8 mg i.v. on day 3) was administered for prophylactic antiemesis. Pharmacokinetics of palonosetron was analyzed in 24 patients.

RESULTS

In this study, all patients were given > or =50 mg/m(2) cisplatin, which was considered to be HEC. No significant differences in complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) rates were found in the first 24 h between the 0.075-, 0.25-, and 0.75-mg groups (77.6%, 81.8%, and 79.5%, respectively). In the 120-h period of overall observation, CR rates increased in a dose-dependent manner. In the 0.75-mg group, we observed a significantly longer time to treatment failure than in the 0.075-mg group (median time >120 versus 82.0 h, P = 0.038). Palonosetron was tolerated well and did not show any dose-related increase in adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron at doses of 0.25 and 0.75 mg was shown to be effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with high CR rates of patients treated with HEC in Japan. All tested doses of palonosetron were tolerated well.

Antiemetic control: toward a new standard of care for emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone have significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed CINV remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists. Casopitant is another NK-1 receptor antagonist that is under review by the FDA after recent completion of Phase III clinical trials. The introduction of these new agents has generated revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron, aprepitant and casopitant with other antiemetic agents (olanzapine, gabapentin, cannabinoids) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Antiemetics: an update and the MASCC guidelines applied in clinical practice

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most severe problems for patients treated with chemotherapy. Until the late 1970s, nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy was an almost neglected research area. With the introduction of cisplatin, the cytotoxin with the highest emetic potential, research was stimulated and has now resulted in the development of two new classes of antiemetics, the serotonin and neurokinin antagonists. A large number of trials have fine-tuned antiemetic therapy and made evidence-based recommendations possible for the majority of patients receiving chemotherapy. This Review discusses the pathophysiology of nausea and vomiting, the development of antiemetics, highlights some of the newest antiemetics, and finally summarizes recommendations from the evidence-based guidelines developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer.

Palonosetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy for germ cell cancer

GOALS OF WORK

The aims of this study were to assess the safety and antiemetic efficacy of multiple-day dosing of palonosetron plus dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for germ cell tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one men undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer received palonosetron 0.25 mg IV once daily 30 min before chemotherapy on days 1, 3, and 5 plus IV dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy on days 1 and 2, and 8 mg PO bid on days 6 and 7 and 4 mg bid on day 8. Safety and efficacy were assessed in 24-h intervals for 9 days. Efficacy endpoints included emesis, intensity of nausea and its interference with patient functioning, and rescue antiemetic use. A subset of patients (n = 11) was studied for electrocardiograph effects and pharmacokinetic evaluation.

MAIN RESULTS

This multiple-day antiemetic regimen was safe, with headache and constipation the most common treatment-related adverse events, mostly mild. Neither adverse events nor electrocardiographic changes appeared to increase in frequency, duration, or intensity over time despite a 1.42-fold systemic accumulation of palonosetron with repeated doses. The majority of patients had no emesis at any time throughout days 1-5 (51%) or days 6-9 (83%), had no moderate-to-severe nausea, and did not require rescue medication. Most patients reported that nausea had no significant effect on daily functioning on days 1-4 (72%) and days 5-9 (85%).

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron on days 1, 3, and 5, along with a regimen of dexamethasone, was safe and well tolerated and effectively controlled both nausea and emesis in patients undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer.

Palonosetron: a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient risk factors (female gender, younger age, alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3 receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a clinical problem. A new agent, palonosetron, has recently been approved for the prevention of acute CINV in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for the prevention of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. In a single dosing study, palonosetron was highly effective in controlling CINV compared with a single dose of dolasetron or ondansetron in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone demonstrated control of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron appeared to be as effective in subsequent courses of chemotherapy compared with the initial course of chemotherapy. There were no clinically relevant differences seen among palonosetron, ondansetron or dolasetron in laboratory, electrocardiographic or vital-sign changes, and adverse reactions reported in the clinical trials were the most common reactions reported for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist class. Recent studies using palonosetron-based anti-emetic combinations in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy, have been reported. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron with current and other new agents and in other clinical settings, such as bone marrow transplantation and radiation therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem for cancer patients. Aprepitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved for use with 5-HT3 antagonists and corticosteroids to prevent CINV associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of standard aprepitant use has not been established.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare three strategies for CINV: conventional treatment with a 5-HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid, conventional treatment plus aprepitant, and conventional treatment with aprepitant added after the onset of CINV. Data from published clinical trials provided probabilities and utilities for the model. Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Federal Supply Scale provided costs for medical resources and medications utilized. Resource use data were based on a randomized clinical trial and routine clinical practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each aprepitant strategy was calculated in US$ per healthy day equivalent (HDE) and converted to dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in model parameters.

RESULTS

Adding aprepitant after CINV occurred cost $264 per HDE ($96,333/QALY). The three-drug strategy cost $267/HDE with a 95% confidence range of $248-$305/HDE ($97,429/QALY; $90,396-$111,239/QALY). In univariate analyses, the most influential factors on the ICER were: the cost of aprepitant, the likelihood of delayed CINV without aprepitant, the likelihood of acute CINV with/without aprepitant, and the increase in HDE from avoiding CINV.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant provides modest incremental benefits compared with conventional management of CINV. Routine aprepitant use appears most cost-effective when the likelihood of delayed CINV or the cost of rescue medications is high.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: incidence and impact on patient quality of life at community oncology settings

GOALS OF WORK

The present study sought to determine the prevalence of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) across ten community oncology settings. The effect of CINV on quality of life (QOL) was also evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cancer patients who were scheduled for their first cycle of a new chemotherapy regimen were recruited from ten community oncology clinics. Study participants recorded occurrence of CINV by completing a daily diary each day for the first 8 days after treatment during each cycle and the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) before chemotherapy, at the end of day 1 and day 6 after chemotherapy. Mixed model regression analysis was used to explore the association between occurrence of CINV at cycle 1 and subsequent cycles and its impact on patient QOL.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-one patients provided information for at least one cycle. During cycle 1, only 33% had neither acute nor delayed CINV. Of the 36% patients who developed acute CINV, 8% developed acute CINV only. Of the 59% who developed delayed CINV, 53% reported delayed only and 47% reported acute and delayed CINV. A similar pattern was seen at cycles 2 and 3. Experience of CINV at cycle 1 was associated with the development of CINV at cycles 2 and 3. Occurrence of CINV significantly interfered with patient QOL as assessed by the FLIE.

CONCLUSIONS

CINV remained a substantial problem for patients receiving chemotherapy in this community-based sample, especially delayed CINV. CINV significantly interfered with patient QOL and daily functioning.

A phase III, double-blind, randomized trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

This pivotal phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to a single intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg or 0.75 mg, or ondansetron 32 mg prior to HEC. Dexamethasone pre-treatment (with stratification) was used at investigator discretion. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR) during the first 24 h post-chemotherapy (acute phase).

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 667), palonosetron 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg were at least as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV (59.2%, 65.5%, and 57.0% CR rates, respectively); CR rates were slightly higher with palonosetron than ondansetron during the delayed (24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases. Two thirds of patients (n = 447) received concomitant dexamethasone. Patients pre-treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg plus dexamethasone had significantly higher CR rates than those receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the delayed (42.0% versus 28.6%) and overall (40.7% versus 25.2%) phases. Palonosetron and ondansetron were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose palonosetron was as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV following HEC, and with dexamethasone pre-treatment, its effectiveness was significantly increased over ondansetron throughout the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.

Side effects associated with the use of dexamethasone for prophylaxis of delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

The role of dexamethasone to reduce delayed emesis following highly emetogenic chemotherapy is proven, but there is less evidence of benefit after mild–moderately emetogenic regimens. Here, we develop and evaluate a Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) to assess the side effects of dexamethasone in the week after patients receive moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The DSQ was first optimised with the aid of a focus group. Sixty patients receiving oral dexamethasone for prophylaxis of delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for cancer completed and then evaluated the DSQ. Patients reported that the DSQ was clearly worded and addressed items important to them. Patients receiving dexamethasone reported moderate–severe problems with insomnia (45%), indigestion/epigastric discomfort (27%), agitation (27%), increased appetite (19%), weight gain (16%) and acne (15%) in the week following chemotherapy. The side effects of dexamethasone may outweigh its benefits when used with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. A randomised, double-blind crossover trial is underway to determine the effect of dexamethasone on nausea and vomiting, and the impact of side effects of dexamethasone and of nausea and vomiting on quality of life.

Emerging drugs for chemotherapy-induced emesis

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient risk factors (female gender, younger age, no alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have recently been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1) antagonists. There are a number of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and NK-1 receptor antagonists currently in Phase II and III clinical trials. Revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV are reviewed. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron and aprepitant with current and other new agents (olanzapine, gabapentin) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Prevención y control de las náuseas y los vómitos inducidos por quimioterapia

Nausea and vomiting are considered one of the most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy. Complete control of acute and delayed emesis improves quality of life and increases adherence to treatment. The frequency of nausea and vomiting depends primarily on the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic agents used. With the standard antiemetic therapy (5HT-3 receptor antagonists in combination with dexamethasone) approximately 13% of patients receiving chemotherapy have vomiting in the acute phase and almost 50% in the delayed phase. A new group of antiemetic drugs, the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, in combination with standard therapy significantly improves emesis protection in the acute and in the delayed phase, although control of nausea is not so effective. Nowadays chemotherapy-induced emesis still occurs. Recent developments in antiemetic therapy and responsibility to achieve the best control of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy justified a review of this problem, which is frequently underestimated by physicians and nurses.

Effect of chemotherapy on circulating gastrointestinal hormone levels in ovarian cancer patients: relationship to nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

The introduction of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists greatly reduced the problems associated with nausea and vomiting immediately after cancer chemotherapy. However, delayed nausea and vomiting is still a major problem and the underlying mechanism is obscure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied the effect of cisplatin-containing combination chemotherapy in 14 ovarian cancer patients on the levels of gastrin and a panel of other hormones as well as glucose and prostaglandin F2a. Blood samples were obtained once daily in the morning before chemotherapy and for 4 days after chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Concentrations of many hormones including gastrin were generally high. A pronounced increase in plasma insulin levels occurred on the day after chemotherapy accompanied by a modest increase in plasma glucose concentrations. Minor increases were observed for gastrin, oxytocin and prostaglandin F2a. In contrast, a transient decrease after chemotherapy was observed for motilin. Plasma cortisol decreased markedly after chemotherapy as expected since betamethasone was given as an antiemetic prophylaxis. Certain trends concerning the relationship between some hormones and nausea and vomiting were noted. A high plasma gastrin concentration before chemotherapy was related to delayed vomiting. Relative day-to-day variability of cholecystokinin tended to correlate positively with delayed nausea, whereas an inverse relationship was observed for gastrin variability.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in hormone plasma levels were found but only few could be distinguished as possible mediators of delayed nausea and vomiting.

A Randomised Crossover Study Comparing Ramosetron plus Dexamethasone with Ramosetron Alone in the Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Emesis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of a combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone compared with ramosetron alone in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomised, single-blind, crossover study.

PATIENTS

Thirty-four chemotherapy-naive patients with stomach cancer or sar-coma scheduled to receive two consecutive courses of cisplatin-based chemo-therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to receive ramosetron (0.3mg intravenously [IV] on day 1 then 0.1mg orally [PO] once daily on days 2-6) either with or without dexamethasone (20mg IV on days 1-6). Those who completed the first chemotherapy cycle returned for a second cycle after 4 weeks and were crossed over to the alternate antiemetic treatment.

RESULTS

In the first 24 hours, complete response was achieved in 84.8% of patients receiving ramosetron plus dexamethasone and in 59.4% of patients receiving ramosetron alone (p = 0.014). Furthermore, the combination ramosetron plus dexamethasone was significantly more effective in terms of time to first episode of vomiting and patient's preference. On day 2, patients who received ramosetron plus dexamethasone had a higher complete response rate than those who received ramosetron alone (p = 0.047). Adverse events were mild with no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ramosetron plus dexamethasone was superior to ramosetron alone in preventing cisplatin-induced acute emesis. It is highly recommended that a combination of ramosetron plus dexamethasone rather than ramosetrone alone be given to patients receiving cisplatin-containing chemo-therapy.

Role of Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists in Chemotherapy-Induced Emesis: Summary of Clinical Trials

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life, and although the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, delayed nausea and vomiting remain a significant clinical problem. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. When added to a standard regimen of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, it improves the complete response rate of acute CINV. Aprepitant also improves the complete response of delayed CINV when used in combination with dexamethasone compared to dexamethasone alone. The use of aprepitant in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy will await the review and analysis of recently completed phase III trials. The control of nausea is improved in some studies with the use of aprepitant when it is combined with a 5HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, but nausea control remains suboptimal. The current data suggest that the mechanism of action of the NK-1s appears to be different from the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Future studies may explore the use of aprepitant and other NK-1s in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Does increasing the steroid dose enhance the efficacy of the antiemetic combination of granisetron and methylprednisolone in gynecologic cancer patients--a randomized study

OBJECTIVE

The authors administered two doses of oral methylprednisolone in combination with 3mg granisetron intravenously for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis in gynecologic cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-nine patients received 100mg (group A) and 25 received 200mg (group B) methylprednisolone in the antiemetic combination in a randomized prospective trial.

RESULTS

No vomiting in 90.2 and 96.7%, one emetic episode in 3 and 1.1% and two episodes in 3 and 2.2% were detected in groups A and B, respectively. More than two emetic episodes were considered to be a failure and were observed only in group A (3.8%). There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups (P=0.3160).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence for enhanced antiemetic effect of elevated steroidal dose in combination with granisetron.

Use of dexamethasone with mesna for the prevention of ifosfamide-induced hemorrhagic cystitis

AIM

Hemorrhagic cystitis (HC) is a limiting side-effect of chemotherapy with ifosfamide (IFS). In the study presented here, we investigated the use of dexamethasone in combination with mesna for the prevention of IFS-induced HC.

METHODS

Male Wistar rats (150-200 g; 6 rats per group) were treated with saline or mesna 5 min (i.p.) before and 2 and 6 h after (v.o.) administration of IFS. One, two or three doses of mesna were replaced with dexamethasone alone or with dexamethasone plus mesna. Cystitis was evaluated 24 h after its induction by the changes in bladder wet weight and by macroscopic and microscopic analysis.

RESULTS

The replacement of the last dose or the last two doses of mesna with dexamethasone reduced the increase in bladder wet weight induced by IFS by 84.79% and 89.13%, respectively. In addition, it almost abolished the macroscopic and microscopic alterations induced by IFS. Moreover, the addition of dexamethasone to the last two doses of mesna was more efficient than three doses of mesna alone when evaluated microscopically.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone in combination with mesna was efficient in blocking IFS-induced HC. However, the replacement of last two doses of mesna with saline or all of the mesna doses with dexamethasone did not prevent HC.