Double-blind, randomized comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of intravenous dolasetron mesylate and intravenous ondansetron in the prevention of acute cisplatin-induced emesis in patients with cancer. Dolasetron Comparative Chemotherapy-induced Emesis Prevention Group

Ondansetron Safety Regarding Prolong QTc for Children with Head Trauma

BACKGROUND

There have been recent reports of increased QT interval after head trauma in concussed athletes and adult patients. Ondansetron, which is widely used in treatment of nausea and vomiting symptoms in head injuries, was issued a safety warning from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding QT prolongation and risk of fatal dysrhythmias.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of ondansetron regarding QT prolongation for patients experiencing nausea or vomiting after head trauma.

METHODS

Patients aged 1-20 years presenting to a pediatric emergency department with head trauma and who required a dose of ondansetron for nausea or vomiting were enrolled in the study. Patients received a baseline 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) prior to administration of either oral or IV ondansetron. A second post-ondansetron 12-lead ECG was performed after administration of ondansetron. All ECGs were reviewed and the QTc calculated manually by a board-certified pediatric cardiologist.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients met enrollment criteria. Five patients received IV ondansetron and 37 received oral ondansetron. Mean QTc pre ondansetron was 387.5 ms and mean QTc post ondansetron was 400.9 ms (p = 0.120). We found no statistically significant difference in other ECG parameters pre and post ondansetron.

CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron is safe in regard to QTc prolongation in patients with head trauma. Based on this research, ondansetron should continue to be used for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in emergency department patients who present with head injury.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

MAIN RESULTS

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Efficacy of the combination use of aprepitant and palonosetron for improving nausea in various moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens

BACKGROUND

Nausea is more difficult to control than vomiting in chemotherapy. We therefore analyzed the efficacy of a strong supportive treatment with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone against nausea for various moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

A total of 312 cases treated by palonosetron with or without aprepitant receiving MEC regimens using oxaliplatin, carboplatin, and irinotecan from 2014 to 2016 in our outpatient center for digestive organ cancers, lung cancers, and gynecological cancers were analyzed. Through propensity score matching analysis, cases were divided into 97 cases receiving 2 drugs (palonosetron+dexamethasone) and 97 receiving 3 drugs (aprepitant+palonosetron+dexamethasone). We examined the control rates of nausea for the first two consecutive courses in the both groups. Additionally, risk factors for acute and delayed nausea were analyzed using a multivariate analysis among overall 312 cases.

RESULTS

The control rates of nausea in the two- and the three-drug groups were as follows: acute, 92.8 and 95.9% (p = 0.35); and delayed, 83.5 and 81.4% (p = 0.85), although the control rates of vomiting exceeded 95% in both groups. A multivariate analysis showed that significant risk factors for acute nausea (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) were elevation of serum creatinine (12.601, 2.437-65.157), general fatigue (3.728, 1.098-12.661), and performance status (PS) 2 (19.829, 3.200-122.865). The significant risk factors for delayed nausea were elevation of alanine aminotransferase (2.397, 1.153-4.984), general fatigue (2.652, 1.380-5.097), and PS 2 (5.748, 1.392-23.740).

CONCLUSIONS

The control for nausea in MEC was insufficient even with palonosetron and aprepitant, and we should pay attention to risk factors for preventing nausea.

Risk factors for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with low-emetic-risk chemotherapy: a prospective, observational, multicenter study

Purpose

Improvement in the control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is needed. There is limited information on antiemetic prophylaxis for patients undergoing low-emetic-risk chemotherapy (LEC), and the optimal antiemetic treatment is not well understood. Therefore, we analyzed the risk factors for delayed CINV to aid in the development of individualized treatments.

Patients and methods

This prospective multicenter study was conducted in 13 hospitals and included patients with solid cancers undergoing LEC. A total of 222 patients were enrolled between September 2013 and November 2014. The participants completed a daily diary for 5 days after the commencement of the first cycle of LEC to describe the daily incidence of CINV (yes/no). Furthermore, the participants described the severity of nausea and the amount of food intake with the help of VAS.

Results

Two hundred and ten patients provided their data that were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression to examine the risk factors for delayed CINV. History of CINV, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score ≥1, acute CINV, and single-day antiemetic prophylaxis were identified as independent risk factors for delayed CINV.

Conclusion

The current use of antiemetic prophylaxis according to the recommended guideline appears to effectively control delayed CINV in patients undergoing LEC. Therefore, patients with the abovementioned risk factors should be carefully observed, and their treatment should be adjusted according to their symptoms. The use of multiple-day dexamethasone may be beneficial for those patients who develop acute CINV, especially when it is accompanied by anorexia.

Recent advances in antiemetics: new formulations of 5HT3-receptor antagonists

Purpose

To discuss new therapeutic strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) involving 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃)-receptor antagonists (RAs).

Summary

CINV remains poorly controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); nausea and delayed-phase CINV (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) are the most difficult to control. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) antiemesis-guideline recommendations for HEC include a four-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, neurokinin 1 [NK₁] RA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine). For some MEC regimens, a three-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, NK₁ RA, and dexamethasone) is recommended. While 5HT₃ RAs have dramatically improved CINV in the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy), their efficacy declines in the delayed phase. Newer formulations have been developed to extend 5HT₃-RA efficacy into the delayed phase. Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), the most recently approved 5HT₃ RA, provides slow, controlled release of therapeutic granisetron concentrations for ≥5 days. GERSC is included in the NCCN and ASCO guidelines for MEC and HEC, with NCCN-preferred status for MEC in the absence of an NK₁ RA. Efficacy and safety of 5HT₃ RAs in the context of guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy are reviewed.

Conclusion

Recent updates in antiemetic guidelines and the development of newer antiemet-ics should help mitigate CINV, this dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. GERSC, the most recently approved 5HT₃-RA formulation, is indicated for use with other antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of MEC and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination-chemotherapy regimens.

A prospective, observational, multicenter study on risk factors and prophylaxis for low emetic risk chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

The incidence of and the risk factors for nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing low emetic risk chemotherapy (LEC) are unclear. The aim of the study was to provide information on these topics by performing a multicenter, observational, prospective study.

METHODS

The study consisted of patients who were administered first-time LEC that was consistent or inconsistent with current guidelines. Using the visual analog scale, patients recorded their daily food intake and the occurrence and severity of nausea over a 5-day treatment period.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting did not differ significantly between patients undergoing guideline-consistent (n = 89) or guideline-inconsistent (n = 121) prophylaxis (30.3 vs. 22.3%, respectively; P = 0.19). Logistic regression analysis identified a history of nausea and LEC other than taxanes as independent risk factors associated with nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing LEC. The mean daily visual analog scale scores for nausea severity and a decrease in food intake were <25 mm throughout the entire observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Guideline-consistent prophylaxis appeared to control nausea and vomiting effectively in patients undergoing LEC. However, patients with a history of nausea and receiving LEC other than taxanes should be carefully observed and treatment should be adjusted according to their symptoms.

A review of dolasetron as management of nausea and vomiting in cancer patients

Objective. To systematically review the literature about the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, dosing, and adverse effects of dolasetron, and to define its role in the management of chemotherapy-and radiation-induced nausea and vomiting.

Data Synthesis. A MedLine search was conducted using 5-HT3-receptor antagonists, antiemetics, chemotherapy toxicity, dolasetron, emesis, nausea, and vomiting as search terms. Reference lists and bibliographies of pertinent articles were also identified and reviewed. Both preclinical and clinical literature were reviewed and analyzed.

Data Synthesis. Dolasetron is a serotonin type 3 (5-HT3)-receptor antagonist with potent antiemetic effects in the management of nausea and vomiting. Following administration, dolasetron is rapidly converted to hydrodolasetron, which is believed to be responsible for the drug's antiemetic activity. Results of multiple studies have demonstrated the efficacy of this agent in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis, including that induced by cisplatin. As a single agent, dolasetron produces a complete response rate (RR) in 44% to 57% of patients treated with cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) and in 59% to 80% of patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, such as cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) therapy. When combined with dexamethasone, the RRs are increased. Dolasetron is well tolerated, with headache (24%) and diarrhea (12%) the most commonly reported adverse effects. The efficacy and safety of dolasetron are comparable to those observed with other 5-HT3-receptor antagonists. According to four recently published clinical practice guidelines for use of antiemetics, dolasetron is an appropriate first-line option for the prevention of nausea and vomiting due to moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Further clinical trials will determine the optimal dose and the role of this highly effective antiemetic agent for other purposes, such as treatment of delayed emesis and emesis resulting from radiation therapy and high-dose chemotherapy followed by bone marrow transplantation.

Cardiotoxicity of antiemetic drugs in oncology: An overview of the current state of the art

PURPOSE

Cardiac complications in cancer patients have been a significant medical problem in the last few years. Cardiosafety profile of most novel approved drugs, in cancer patients, is required by regulatory authorities. Risk of proarrhythmic effect associated with a new drug, in fact, is usually evaluated with specific studies conducted in agreement with ICHE14 guidelines. In this overview, we detailed the cardio safety profile of antiemetic drugs. In particular, we focused on data of 5HT3-RA drugs used for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the oncology setting.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed database to identify studies reporting arrhythmic complications of antiemetic drug used in oncology.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Most of the antiemetic drugs have been approved by regulatory authorities when ICHE14 guidelines were not issued, so the cardiotoxicity of those drugs has been defined with the post-marketing authorization pharmacovigilance activity. We reviewed the cardiotoxicity data of major antiemetic and adjuvant agents, providing a general overview and recommendations about their use in medical oncology.

Treatment of Breakthrough and Refractory Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Despite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with the introduction of new antiemetic agents, 30-50% of patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) and guideline directed prophylactic antiemetics develop breakthrough CINV. International guidelines recommend the treatment of breakthrough CINV with an agent from a drug class that was not used in the prophylactic antiemetic regimen and recommend using the breakthrough medication continuously rather than using it on an as needed basis. There have been very few studies on the treatment of breakthrough CINV. A recent double-blind, randomized, phase III study suggested that olanzapine may be an effective agent for the treatment of breakthrough CINV. Refractory CINV occurs when patients develop CINV during subsequent cycles of chemotherapy when antiemetic prophylaxis has not been successful in controlling CINV in earlier cycles. Patients who develop refractory CINV should be considered for a change in their prophylactic antiemetic regimen. If significant anxiety exists, a benzodiazepine may be added to the prophylactic regimen. If a refractory patient is receiving HEC, olanzapine may be added to the prophylactic regimen. If the patient is receiving MEC, olanzapine or an NK-1 receptor antagonist may be added to the prophylactic regimen.

Preliminary Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Efficacy of Regorafenib, Cisplatin, and Pemetrexed in Patients With Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancers

Regorafenib is an oral multitargeted kinase inhibitor with potent antiangiogenic activity. In this phase I trial we evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of regorafenib with cisplatin and pemetrexed for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancers (nsNSCLCs). Nine patients enrolled before premature termination of the study. Five of 9 (56%) patients had a partial response and the median progression-free survival was 7 months (range, 1.5-15.1 months). Regorafenib had acceptable tolerability and minor pharmacokinetic interactions in combination with standard doses of cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced nsNSCLCs.

BACKGROUND

The combination of bevacizumab, an antiangiogenesis agent, with cytotoxic chemotherapy improves survival in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancers (nsNSCLCs). Regorafenib is an oral multitargeted kinase inhibitor with potent antiangiogenic activity that is approved for patients with advanced colorectal cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. In this phase I trial we evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of regorafenib with cisplatin and pemetrexed for patients with advanced nsNSCLCs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced nsNSCLCs were treated with regorafenib 60 mg/d continuously and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) with pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 21 days for up to 6 cycles. Thereafter, regorafenib with or without pemetrexed could be continued as maintenance.

RESULTS

Nine patients enrolled before premature termination of the study because of slow recruitment and a change in the development strategy of regorafenib by the study sponsor. Five patients experienced at least 1 treatment-related Grade 3 adverse event. No Grade 4 or 5 toxicity occurred. Five of 9 (56%) patients had a partial response and the median progression-free survival was 7 months (range, 1.5-15.1 months). Minor PK interactions between regorafenib and chemotherapy were observed.

CONCLUSION

Regorafenib had acceptable tolerability and minor PK interactions in combination with standard doses of cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced nsNSCLCs. Encouraging activity was appreciated in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced nsNSCLCs. However, the small number of patients treated limits conclusions that can be drawn from these results.

Therapeutic and preventive antiemetic effect of aprepitant in Japanese patients with thoracic malignancies who truly need it

PURPOSE

Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist is recommended for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and has recently been introduced to oncology practice in Japan. However, whether all patients undergoing HEC truly need NK-1 receptor antagonist remains unknown, and increasing medical costs due to uniform use of NK-1 receptor antagonist are a concern. This study was conducted to examine the prevalence of patients who needed aprepitant at the time of its introduction in Japan, and therapeutic and preventive effects of aprepitant on HEC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients with thoracic malignancies who were to undergo HEC or MEC received 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to prevent CINV. Aprepitant was administered to treat CINV occurring in the first course, or to prevent CINV in the second course. Frequency of vomiting, degree of nausea, and quality of life with respect to CINV were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 96 patients were enrolled. Aprepitant was not administered in 57 and 88 % of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively. In patients treated with aprepitant (n = 18), therapeutic use of aprepitant after occurrence of CINV (n = 9) decreased average scores in numerical rating scale for nausea from 7.44 to 5.44 (p = 0.10), and average frequency of vomiting per day from 2.11 to 0.11 (p = 0.03). Prophylactic use of aprepitant in the second course (n = 18) increased the proportion of patients with no significant nausea from 6 % (first course) to 50 % (second course; p = 0.007), and those with no vomiting from 33 to 89 % (p = 0.002). Aprepitant use also significantly improved quality of life with respect to CINV in the second course.

CONCLUSION

More than half of patients receiving HEC and 88 % of patients receiving MEC did not use aprepitant. Aprepitant showed significant therapeutic and preventive effects on CINV in patients who truly needed it.

WITHDRAWN: Serotonin receptor antagonists for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in adults

This review is now out of date although it is correct as of the date of publication. The latest version of this review (available in ‘Other versions’ tab on The Cochrane Library) may still be useful to readers.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Risk factors of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: index for personalized antiemetic prophylaxis

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most problematic adverse events that affects the well-being of cancer patients. Risk factors for CINV and its elimination are necessary to increase the indications for and effectiveness of chemotherapy. We enrolled 1549 chemotherapy-naïve patients in two phase II trials and one phase III trial of palonosetron between 2005 and 2007. Treatment failure (any emetic episodes or any administration of rescue medication) and/or nausea, and their associations with patient factors were evaluated in acute and in delayed phases using univariate and multivariate analyses. Female gender (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 2.96, 2.09-4.20), age <55 years (2.56, 1.94-3.37), non-habitual alcohol intake (1.90, 1.43-2.51) and non-smoker (1.40, 1.04-1.90) were associated with treatment failure in the acute phase. In contrast, only female gender (1.88, 1.34-2.64) was associated with treatment failure in the delayed phase. The number of risk factors was significantly associated with CINV in both acute and delayed phases. Patient risk factors were significantly associated with CINV. Depending on the relationship between CINV-related risk factors and a tailored antiemetic treatment, high-risk patients defined by the listed risk factors may be candidates for future clinical trials.

Recent advances in pharmacotherapy of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

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

The use of olanzapine versus metoclopramide for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Olanzapine has been shown to be a safe and effective agent for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Olanzapine may also be an effective rescue medication for patients who develop breakthrough CINV despite having received guideline-directed CINV prophylaxis.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized phase III trial was performed for the treatment of breakthrough CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (cisplatin, ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin, ≥ 50 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide, ≥ 600 mg/m2), comparing olanzapine to metoclopramide. Patients who developed breakthrough emesis or nausea despite prophylactic dexamethasone (12 mg IV), palonosetron (0.25 mg IV), and fosaprepitant (150 mg IV) pre-chemotherapy and dexamethasone (8 mg p.o. daily, days 2-4) post-chemotherapy were randomized to receive olanzapine, 10 mg orally daily for 3 days or metoclopramide, 10 mg orally TID for 3 days. Patients were monitored for emesis and nausea for 72 h after taking olanzapine or metoclopramide. Two hundred seventy-six patients (median age 62 years, range 38-79; 43% women; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS 0,1) consented to the protocol. One hundred twelve patients developed breakthrough CINV and 108 were evaluable.

RESULTS

During the 72-h observation period, 39 out of 56 (70%) patients receiving olanzapine had no emesis compared to 16 out of 52 (31%) patients with no emesis for patients receiving metoclopramide (p < 0.01). Patients without nausea (0, scale 0-10, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory) during the 72-h observation period were those who took olanzapine, 68% (38 of 56), and metoclopramide, 23% (12 of 52) (p < 0.01). There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine was significantly better than metoclopramide in the control of breakthrough emesis and nausea in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Reappraisal of the role of dolasetron in prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with surgery or chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and postoperative nausea and vomiting are one of the most frequent but also very concerning consequences for patients undergoing chemotherapy or surgical procedures under general anesthesia. There are a variety of mechanisms involved in the activation of nausea and vomiting. Serotonin, a ubiquitous central and peripheral neurotransmitter, is thought to be the predominant mediator of the perception of nausea and triggering of the vomiting response in both the brain and the periphery via the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor pathways. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists disrupt this pathway, largely at the level of the vagal afferent pathways, to decrease nausea and vomiting. This review will focus on dolasetron, an older but sill commonly used 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist and its multimodal mechanism of action, safety and tolerability, patient considerations, and a review of the current literature on its use to combat both chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting in these two important patient populations.

Acute effect of palonosetron on electrocardiographic parameters in cancer patients: a prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Palonosetron is a novel 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) (5 HT(3)) receptor antagonist, which has been shown to be superior to first generation 5 HT(3) receptor antagonists regarding the prevention of acute, delayed and overall chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. First generation 5 HT(3) receptor antagonists may induce electrocardiographic changes of heart rate and repolarization. The acute cardiac effect of palonosteron is unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine acute effects of palonosetron on electrocardiographic (ECG) parameters in cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study had a prospective design. Seventy-six cancer patients with normal cardiac function who received palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting were enrolled. Standard 12-lead ECG recordings were performed at baseline and 30 min after palonosetron administration. P wave durations and corrected QT intervals were measured; P wave dispersion (Pd) and QTc dispersion were calculated.

RESULTS

Median heart rate did not differ among 76 patients enrolled before and after palonosetron administration (p: 0.6). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were not significantly different before and after palonosteron (p values 0.9 and 0.3, respectively). Although median QT min value was higher after palonosetron administration than before palonosetron administration, the difference was not statistically significant (p: 0.6).

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron seems to have no acute arrhythmogenic potential.

Electrocardiographic findings of palonosetron in cancer patients

PURPOSE

Nausea and vomiting are among the major problems occurring during and after the chemotherapy treatments of cancer patients. The recently developed 5-HT(3) antagonists have proved much more effective than former agents. Several studies have shown that these agents cause certain ECG changes. We aimed to evaluate the ECG changes caused by palonosetron, one of the new 5-HT(3) antagonists.

METHODS

Our study includes a total of 50 patients diagnosed with solid-organ tumors receiving chemotherapy. The patients were applied 12-lead ECG before palonosetron infusion. Afterwards, subsequent ECGs were applied on the 30th, 60th, and 90th minutes following the infusion of palonosetron. Arterial blood pressure was measured before and after the infusion. PR, QRS, QT, QTmax, QTmin, QTd, Pmax, Pmin, Pd, QTc, QTcmax, QTcmin, and QTcd values were evaluated for each ECG.

RESULTS

We did not detect significant correlations between the systolic and diastolic blood pressures before and after (30 min) palonosetron infusion (p > 0.05). However, there was a statistically significant decrease in heart rate (p = 0.000). The evaluation of ECG findings revealed that there was a significant prolongation in PR distance, as shown by the comparisons of 0 min with 30, 60, and 90 min. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in QRS, QT, QTmax, QTmin, QTd, Pmax, Pmin, Pd, QTc, QTcmax, QTcmin, and QTcd values (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In this study, we revealed that palonosetron did not cause any severe rhythmic disorders or symptomatic ECG changes. We concluded that it could be safe to administer palonosetron antiemetically.

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.

Chemotherapy-and cancer-related nausea and vomiting

Approximately one half of cancer patients will experience nausea or vomiting during the course of their disease either because of the cancer itself or because of their treatment. Emesis attributable to cancer warrants a careful investigation to determine whether a treatable underlying cause is responsible. Interventions using dexamethasone and octreotide may reduce vomiting attributable to bowel obstruction. In the absence of a bowel obstruction or a correctable cause, the usual approach is a sequential trial of antiemetics guided by considerations of cost and side effects.

Major progress in managing chemotherapy-induced emesis followed from the use of a combination of a corticosteroid and 5-hydroxytryptamine₃ (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist for moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Nevertheless, vomiting still occurred in approximately 40% of women receiving chemotherapy containing an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide and in approximately 50% of patients receiving high-dose cisplatin. The addition of aprepitant, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, improved control of emesis by a further 15%–20%, and that agent is now recommended as part of standard antiemetic therapy for patients at high risk of emesis. Based largely on anecdotal experience, cannabinoids and olanzapine are sometimes also recommended in patients with refractory emesis. Phase iii trials are required to confirm their efficacy as add-ons to a corticosteroid, a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, and possibly aprepitant.

Vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastroenteritis

Diseases that cause vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastroenteritis are major problems for populations worldwide. Patients, particularly infants, elderly, and immunocompromised individuals, may present at any point in a wide spectrum of disease states, underscoring the need for the clinician to treat these ailments aggressively. Several promising new treatment modalities, from oral rehydration solutions to antiemetic therapies, have been introduced over the past decade. Future directions include the use of probiotic agents and better tolerated rehydration solutions. Gastrointestinal disease will continue to be a focus worldwide in the search for better ways to cure illnesses associated with vomiting and diarrhea.

Differences in efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical treatments between men and women: an umbrella review

Being male or female is an important determinant of risks for certain diseases, patterns of illness and life expectancy. Although differences in risks for and prognoses of several diseases have been well documented, sex-based differences in responses to pharmaceutical treatments and accompanying risks of adverse events are less clear. The objective of this umbrella review was to determine whether clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety of commonly prescribed medications exist between men and women. We retrieved all available systematic reviews of the Oregon Drug Effectiveness Review Project published before January 2010. Two persons independently reviewed each report to identify relevant studies. We dually abstracted data from the original publications into standardized forms. We synthesized the available evidence for each drug class and rated its quality applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Findings, based on 59 studies and data of more than 250,000 patients suggested that for the majority of drugs no substantial differences in efficacy and safety exist between men and women. Some clinically important exceptions, however, were apparent: women experienced substantially lower response rates with newer antiemetics than men (45% vs. 58%; relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.35-1.64); men had higher rates of sexual dysfunction than women while on paroxetine for major depressive disorder; women discontinued lovastatin more frequently than men because of adverse events. Overall, for the majority of drugs sex does not appear to be a factor that has to be taken into consideration when choosing a drug treatment. The available body of evidence, however, was limited in quality and quantity, confining the range and certainty of our conclusions.

Serotonin receptor antagonists for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in adults

BACKGROUND

Serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs) are used to control chemotherapy-induced emesis. Although they have the same general mechanism of action (blockade of serotonin receptors), they have different chemical structures and may have different effects.

OBJECTIVES

To compare efficacy of different serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs) in the control of acute and delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane PaPaS Group, PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. Our most recent search was in March 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing 5-HT(3) RAs in an adult cancer population.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted information from the included studies on the control of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting, either as a single or a combined outcome. Where appropriate, we combined the results of similar trials. We carried out sensitivity and subgroup analyses to test the robustness of our findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials (7808 participants). Nine of the trials compared granisetron versus ondansetron. No other drug comparison was studied in more than one trial. The meta-analyses of the granisetron versus ondansetron trials found similar results for the two drugs on acute vomiting (eight trials, 4256 participants, odds ratio (OR) 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02), acute nausea (seven trials, 4160 participants, OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10), delayed vomiting (three trials, 1119 participants, OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34) and delayed nausea (two trials, 1024 participants, OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.24). Granisetron and ondansetron showed similar effects on headache and diarrhoea, with the possible exception of less constipation associated with ondansetron.One study of 1114 participants comparing palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone showed superiority of palonosetron in controlling delayed vomiting (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.85) and delayed nausea (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.10). Complete response for delayed nausea and vomiting was also in favour of the combination palonosetron and dexamethasone (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.07).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron and granisetron appear to be equivalent drugs for the prevention of acute and delayed emesis following the use of highly emetogenic chemotherapy.According to one single trial the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone was superior to granisetron and dexamethasone in controlling delayed emesis. However, more evidence is needed before palonosetron could become the candidate 5-HT(3) RA for the control of delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: approval and efficacy

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 characteristics (female gender, younger age, low alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. This review provides a detailed description of palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist. The chemistry and pharmacology of palonosetron are described, as well as the initial and recent clinical trials. Palonosetron has a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than the first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Palonosetron has 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. In recent studies, compared to the first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone demonstrated better control of delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. There were no clinically relevant adverse reactions reported in the palonosetron clinical trials which were different from the common reactions reported for the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist class. Due to its efficacy in controlling both acute and delayed CINV, palonosetron may be very effective in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

The likelihood ratio test for non-standard hypotheses near the boundary of the null – with application to the assessment of non-inferiority

We consider a class of testing problems where the null space is the union of k-1 subgraphs of the form h j (θ j )≤θ k , with j=1,…,k-1, (θ 1,…,θ k ) the unknown parameter, and h j given increasing functions. The data consist of k independent samples, assumed to be drawn from a distribution with parameter θ j , j=1,…,k, respectively. An important class of examples covered by this setting is that of non-inferiority hypotheses, which have recently become important in the evaluation of drugs or therapies. When the true parameter approaches the boundary at a 1/√n rate, we give the explicit form of the asymptotic distribution of the log-likelihood ratio statistic. This extends previous work on the distribution of likelihood ratio statistics to local alternatives. We consider the prominent example of binomial data and illustrate the theory for k=2 and 3 samples. We explain how this can be used for planning a non-inferiority trial. To this end we calculate the optimal sample ratios yielding the maximal power in a binomial non-inferiority trial.

Use of the visual analog scale to rate and monitor severity of nausea in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to describe the association between verbal descriptors of nausea severity and visual analog scale (VAS) ratings in an undifferentiated emergency department (ED) population and to calculate the minimum clinically significant difference (MCSD) in VAS rating of nausea severity in this population.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted at three EDs on a convenience sample of stable, consenting adult patients presenting with nausea as part of their symptom complex. Data included demographics, adjectival description of nausea severity (none, mild, moderate, or severe), and VAS rating (standard 100-mm line) at enrollment, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes. At 30 and 60 minutes they were also asked to describe any change in nausea severity from the previous rating ("a lot less,""a little less,""the same,""a little more,""a lot more"). The MCSD was defined as the average VAS change when a patient reported "a little less" or "a little more" nausea.

RESULTS

A total of 247 patients provided 693 matched adjectival ratings and VAS scores. Median age was 45 years, and 100 (40%) were male. The median VAS measures for none, mild, moderate, and severe nausea were 2, 23, 53, and 83 mm, respectively. VAS distributions in the verbal categories were statistically different from each other (Spearman rank correlation coefficient = 0.90; p < 0.0001). The MCSD was 22 mm (95% CI = 20 to 24 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

There is very good correlation between verbal descriptors of nausea and VAS ratings. The MCSD for VAS nausea ratings in an ED population is 22 mm.

[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.

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.

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.

A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of four 5-HT3-receptor antagonists for acute chemotherapy-induced emesis

GOALS OF WORK

Comparing antiemetic efficacy of different 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists (5-HT(3)RAs) is difficult due to inter-study variability. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to comparatively evaluate dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron and tropisetron for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Comparisons between 5-HT(3)RAs were based on 44 randomized studies (including 12,343 patients) identified by MEDLINE, CANCERLIT or EMBASE searches and subcategorized by chemotherapy type (cisplatin- or non-cisplatin-based).

MAIN RESULTS

When all studies were combined, granisetron was equivalent to ondansetron (n = 27), and showed an advantage vs tropisetron (p = 0.018; n = 12). Ondansetron vs tropisetron (n = 11) and ondansetron vs dolasetron (n = 3) revealed equivalence in each comparison. An advantage for 3 mg granisetron vs 8 mg ondansetron was found in non-cisplatin-based studies (p = 0.015; n = 6). Overall equivalence was seen between ondansetron, 24 or 32 mg, and granisetron, 2 or 3 mg, for all studies (n = 13). There was a possible advantage for higher (24 or 32 mg) vs lower (8 mg) ondansetron dose regimens with cisplatin-based trials (n = 6). No differences were seen between 3 and 1 mg granisetron doses (n = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy of 5-HT(3)RAs for preventing CINV following cisplatin- and non-cisplatin-based chemotherapy is comparable, with the exception of granisetron vs tropisetron. Some differences were noted in dosing subanalyses.

Gastrointestinal toxicity of chemotherapeutic agents

Chemotherapy-induced toxicities commonly occur in sites within the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and account for dose-limiting effects. These toxicities are major contributing factors to dose reduction, delays, and cessation of cancer treatment. Through intensive therapies including surgery, combination chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy, an increasing number of patients with cancer are experiencing improved survival and long-term disease-free survival, as well as palliation of disease-related symptoms. Thus, GI toxicities should be predicted and appropriate interventions initiated to prevent them when possible and provide effective supportive measures and comprehensive follow-up care. This review will discuss the etiology, incidence, prevention, and treatment of GI toxicities of cancer chemotherapy.

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.

An evaluation of potential signals for ventricular arrhythmia and cardiac arrest with dolasetron, ondansetron, and granisetron in the fda combined spontaneous reporting system/adverse event reporting system

BACKGROUND

Of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3)-receptor antagonists, dolasetron, ondan-setron, granisetron, and palonosetron, only dolasetron and palonosetron have a precaution in their FDA labeling concerning corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation. At FDA approved doses, QTc prolongation has been observed in clinical trials with some 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (however, palonosetron has been only recently approved, with few published clinical data available). However, due to patient exclusion criteria, such trials with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists may have failed to examine the risk of these agents in "real world" patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis was to assess the potential risk for selected cardiac adverse events associated with dolasetron, ondansetron, and granisetron use.

METHODS

The FDA combined Spontaneous Reporting System/Adverse Event Reporting System database was analyzed. The process of analyzing such a database for early warnings of potential hazards is known as signal generation. The statistical technique proportional reporting ratio (PRR) was used to aid detection of a potential signal within the database. PRR is the observed proportion of a given adverse event for the drug of interest (the number of events of interest for the drug divided by the total number of reports for the drug) divided by the expected proportion. Through the third quarter of 2002, the database was searched using the preferred term electrocardiogram qt corrected interval prolonged.

RESULTS

One, 3, and 0 cases were reported for dolasetron, ondansetron, andgranisetron, respectively. The number of cases did not satisfy 1 of the 3 criteria we utilized to define a potential signal, the 3 criteria being: 3 or more reported cases of the adverse event, a PRR value of at least 2, and a χ(2) value of >4. As this term may be unlikely to be reported, the database was also searched using the term ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest. The PRR, used as a parameter to detect a potential signal within the database, was 3.23, 1.31, and 1.13 for dolasetron, ondansetron, and granisetron, respectively. The number of observed ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrests was ∼3-fold higher with dolasetron compared with the expected value (calculated by dividing the individual agent's total number of events reported by the proportion of adverse events for all agents combined). The results for dolasetron fulfilled the criteria we used to define a potential signal.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis detected a potential signal for ventricular arrhythmiasand cardiac arrest with dolasetron, but not with ondansetron or granisetron. However, there are limitations of a PRR analysis, which include only measuring cases that have been reported, providing relative frequencies instead of actual rates, and not providing information on the severity of adverse events or causal relationships. In addition, our analysis does not include consideration of concomitant medications, and only 2 search terms were used. Errors in identifying potential signals may also include confounding factors, such as the underlying disease, potential confusion with reporting under trade and generic names, and potential multiple reporting of the same case.

Antiemetic guidelines: are they being used?

Evidence-based guidelines are regarded as therapeutic standards for many medical interventions. However, implementation of such recommendations seems to be rather difficult. An international antiemetic guideline for the treatment of patients undergoing chemotherapy was issued by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer in 1997 and has been in use ever since. However, for many reasons, the guideline has not been followed completely, despite the fact that if antiemetics are used in accordance with guidelines, efficacy is similar to that achieved in randomised controlled trials. Structural difficulties, patients characteristics, and other barriers, such as the individual acceptance of guidelines and education of physicians and nurses, could be crucial factors for successful implementation. Thus, better adherence to antiemetic guidelines can only be achieved through a complex and long-term process, consisting of efficient education, training, and monitoring of all individuals involved.