Comparison of single-dose oral granisetron versus intravenous ondansetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized parallel study

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

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

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.

RETRACTED: Pluronic® F127 stabilized reduced graphene oxide hydrogel for transdermal delivery of ondansetron: Ex vivo and animal studies

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors. Significant similarities were noticed post-publication between this article and an article submitted to the journal on the same day, by an apparently unrelated research group: Qiang Li, Fangmei Li, Xixi Qi, Fuqiao Wei, Hongxiao Chen and Ting Wang, Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 195 (2020) 111246 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.111246. Moreover, the authors did not respond to the journal request to comment on these similarities and to provide the raw data, and the Editors decided to retract the article. One of the conditions of submission of a paper for publication is that authors declare explicitly that their work is original and genuine. As such this article represents a severe abuse of the scientific publishing system. The scientific community takes a very strong view on this matter and apologies are offered to readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process.

More opioids, more constipation? Evaluation of longitudinal total oral opioid consumption and self-reported constipation in patients with cancer

PURPOSE

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a distressing physical symptom for patients with cancer taking opioids. Total opioid consumption may contribute to developing worsening OIC-related symptoms. We completed a retrospective analysis examining the association of total daily opioid consumption on self-reported constipation in patients with cancer.

METHODS

In over 5 clinic visits, we collected self-reported constipation scores and 24-h oral morphine equivalents (OME). We examined the association between OME and the presence of constipation (i.e., score > 3) and the relationship of OME between patients with or without constipation.

RESULTS

Of 297 patients with cancer, we observed 57.8% with constipation and 42.4% without constipation at the first clinic visit. Age was similar in both groups (54.2 ± 14.5 vs. 56.4 ± 14.8 years [mean ± SD]) and the majority of patients were women (63.7% vs. 61.1%). The most common cancer type in patients with constipation was non-colorectal gastrointestinal (n = 25, 14.6%), while in patients without constipation was colorectal gastrointestinal (n = 25; 19.8%). Across visits, we observed weak or no association between OME and self-reported constipation (r = 0.01-0.27). At the first visit, higher mean OME was seen in patients who self-reported constipation (133.4 vs 76; p < 0.05). Age, sex, metastatic disease, and stimulant laxative use were not associated with constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed weak to no association between OME and constipation in patients with cancer. These results suggest a lack of a clear association between total opioid consumption and self-reported constipation.

Comparison of Palonosetron with Granisetron for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery

Background:

In patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a serious concern. With an incidence of 46%–72%, PONV hampers the postoperative recovery in spite of the availability of many antiemetic drugs. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron in preventing PONV and to compare the duration of action and side effects in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia.

Settings and Design:

Eighty patients who were comparable in all aspects were considered for this study. After their consent, they participated in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, comparative study.

Materials and Methods:

In this observational study, 80 patients of either gender who were undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled in the study. Based on computer randomization, these patients were divided equally into two groups of 40 patients each in double-blinded manner. The treatments were given intravenously 5 min before induction of anesthesia. The episodes of PONV, severity of nausea/vomiting, and side effects were observed during the first 48 h after surgery.

Statistical Tests:

At the end of study, results were compiled and SPSS^® statistical package version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Two independent samples t-test was used for quantitative data, and Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used for qualitative data. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results:

The incidence of PONV during 0–2 h in the postoperative period was 15% with palonosetron and 27.5% with granisetron; the incidence during 2–24 h postoperatively was 20% with palonosetron and 30% with granisetron. Both palonosetron and granisetron had comparable effectiveness as antiemetic during the early postoperative periods (0–24 h). During 24–48 h, the incidence was 17.5% and 37.5%, respectively (P = 0.04). Safety profile was similar in both the groups (P = 0.6).

Conclusion:

There were no significant differences in the overall incidence of PONV and complete responders for palonosetron and granisetron group in the early recovery period. However, due to its prolonged duration of action, palonosetron was more effective than granisetron for long-term prevention of PONV after laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea: the role of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists

Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists (RAs) has reduced the risk of vomiting, but (except for palonosetron) their effect on nausea, especially delayed nausea, is limited. This article reviews the role of NK₁RAs when combined with 5-HT₃RA–dexamethasone in CIN prophylaxis. Aprepitant has not shown consistent superiority over a two-drug (ondansetron–dexamethasone) combination in nausea control after cisplatin– or anthracycline–cyclophosphamide (AC)-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Recently, dexamethasone and dexamethasone–metoclopramide were demonstrated to be non-inferior to aprepitant and aprepitant–dexamethasone, respectively, for the control of delayed nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin), and are now recognized in the guidelines. The potential impact of the new NK₁RAs rolapitant and netupitant (oral fixed combination with palonosetron, as NEPA) in CIN prophylaxis is discussed. While the clinical significance of the effect on nausea of the rolapitant–granisetron–dexamethasone combination after cisplatin is not conclusive, rolapitant addition showed no improvement in nausea prophylaxis after AC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). NEPA was superior to palonosetron in the control of nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin). Moreover, the efficacy of NEPA in nausea control was maintained over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC. Recently, NK₁RAs have been challenged by olanzapine, with olanzapine showing superior efficacy in nausea prevention after HEC. Fixed antiemetic combinations (such as NEPA) or new antiemetics with a long half-life that may be given once per chemotherapy cycle (rolapitant or NEPA) may improve patient compliance with antiemetic treatment.

A retrospective study of R-CHOP/CHOP therapy-induced nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: a comparison of intravenous and oral 5-HT3 receptor antagonists

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a serious problem for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The CHOP regimen is the standard treatment for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and is categorized as highly or moderately emetogenic in the CINV guidelines. The efficacy of oral 5-HT3 receptor antagonists is equivalent to that of the intravenous form in patients with solid tumors, but there is no clear comparative data for the use of these agents NHL patients receiving CHOP. We analyzed retrospective CINV data from medical records of 72 NHL patients who received CHOP or rituximab-combined CHOP therapy (R-CHOP). All patients received 5-HT3 receptor antagonists alone for prevention of CINV; 39 of the patients received an intravenous form (mostly granisetron) and 33 an oral form (all ramosetron). Complete response (CR: defined as no vomiting and no rescue therapy) was observed in 58 of 72 patients (80.6 %) overall (0-120 h post-CHOP). The CR rate was not statistically different in patients treated with oral or intravenous 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (82.1 vs 78.8 %, P = 0.77). These findings suggest that oral 5-HT3 receptor antagonists represent a good alternative to intravenous forms in NHL receiving CHOP/R-CHOP chemotherapy. Further studies are needed to identify the optimal anti-emetic supportive therapy for NHL.

A phase II, randomized study of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapies in colorectal cancer patients

The present study aimed to study the efficacy of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for colorectal cancer (CRC), and comprised a multicenter, phase II, open-label, randomized, parallel comparative study conducted as part of the Kagoshima aprepitant study for colon cancer in Japan. Patients with advanced or recurrent CRC were treated with standard MEC regimens (FOLFOX, XELOX or FOLFIRI) and received either standard chemotherapy [5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA) + dexamethasone] or aprepitant regimen chemotherapy (5-HT₃ RA + reduced-dose dexamethasone + aprepitant). The primary endpoint of the present study was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR) during the overall, acute, and delayed phases of the first planned chemotherapy cycle. Secondary endpoints were complete protection, the proportions of patients without emetic episodes or nausea, patients with no more than moderate nausea during the overall, acute and delayed phases, and the time to treatment failure. The CR rates in the overall, acute and delayed phases were similar in the aprepitant and the standard-regimen groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences in secondary endpoints between the two groups. In summary, aprepitant in combination with 5-HT₃ RA and reduced-dose corticosteroids was well tolerated and effective in preventing CINV associated with moderately emetogenic antitumor agents in Japanese patients with CRC.

Acute toxicity profile of craniospinal irradiation with intensity-modulated radiation therapy in children with medulloblastoma: A prospective analysis

BACKGROUND

To report on the acute toxicity in children with medulloblastoma undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with daily intrafractionally modulated junctions.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed patients, aged 3-21, with standard-risk (SR) or high-risk (HR) medulloblastoma were eligible. A dose of 23.4 or 36.0 Gy in daily fractions of 1.8 Gy was prescribed to the craniospinal axis, followed by a boost to the primary tumor bed (54 or 55.8 Gy) and metastases (39.6-55.8 Gy), when indicated. Weekly, an intravenous bolus of vincristine was combined for patients with SR medulloblastoma and patients participating in the COG-ACNS-0332 study. Common toxicity criteria (CTC, version 2.0) focusing on skin, alopecia, voice changes, conjunctivitis, anorexia, dysphagia, gastro-intestinal symptoms, headache, fatigue and hematological changes were scored weekly during radiotherapy.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2014, data from 15 consecutive patients (SR, n = 7; HR, n = 8) were collected. Within 72 h from onset of treatment, vomiting (66 %) and headache (46 %) occurred. During week 3 of treatment, a peak incidence in constipation (33 %) and abdominal pain/cramping (40 %) was observed, but only in the subgroup of patients (n = 9) receiving vincristine (constipation: 56 vs 0 %, P = .04; pain/cramping: 67 vs 0 %, P = .03). At week 6, 73 % of the patients developed faint erythema of the cranial skin with dry desquamation (40 %) or moist desquamation confined to the skin folds of the auricle (33 %). No reaction of the skin overlying the spinal target volume was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Headache at onset and gastro-intestinal toxicity, especially in patients receiving weekly vincristine, were the major complaints of patients with medulloblastoma undergoing craniospinal irradiation with IMRT.

Are 5-HT3 antagonists effective in obsessive-compulsive disorder? A systematic review of literature

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this literature database search-based review was to critically consider and evaluate the findings of literature focusing on efficacy and safety of 5-HT3 antagonists in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), so as to test whether preclinical data match clinical therapeutic trials.

DESIGN

The PubMed database has been searched for papers on 5-HT3 antagonists and OCD in humans and for animal models of OCD and 5-HT3 receptors.

RESULTS

Of the clinically tested 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, ondansetron has been used to treat OCD in five therapeutic studies, whereas granisetron only in one recent trial. Both showed some efficacy in open studies and superiority to placebo in double-blind studies, along with fair safety. No animal OCD model directly implicated 5-HT3 receptors.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, results indicate some utility, but the available literature is too scanty to allow for valid conclusions to be drawn. The mismatch between animal models of obsessive-compulsive disorder and clinical data with 5-HT3 antagonists needs more clinical data to ensure that it is not an artefact.

Aprepitant as prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide-based regimen for adjuvant breast cancer

The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a three-drug antiemetic prophylaxis in a single-center series treated with anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide-based regimen for BC. We collected data from 92 consecutive patients treated with routine antiemetic prophylaxis consisted of aprepitant (oral 125 mg, on day 1; oral 80 mg, on days 2 and 3), a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (palonosetron iv 0.25 mg, on day 1), and dexamethasone (iv 12 mg, on day 1). Acute and delayed phases were defined as the first 24 h and days 2-5 after treatment, respectively. Therapy outcomes were defined as complete response (CR), in case of no vomiting, no rescue treatment; complete protection (CP), in case of no vomiting, no rescue treatment, no significant nausea; and total control (TC), in case of no vomiting, no rescue treatment, no nausea. Overall, 89.1 and 81.5% of patients showed CR in acute and delayed phase, respectively; 67.4 and 62% showed CP in acute and delayed phase, respectively; and 52.2 and 48.9% of patients showed TC in acute and delayed phase, respectively. 4.3% complained an episode of emesis during the first 24 h from treatment, while in delayed phase, only 2.2% of patients had vomiting. Our analysis confirmed that a three-drug prophylaxis is safe, effective, and consequently highly recommended in patients who undergo anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide-based regimens, though still not classified as highly emetogenic chemotherapy by all the international guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines on antiemetics in oncology

The tolerability of chemotherapy has been significantly improved by the advent of effective drugs and protocols for the amelioration of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Variables such as the timing of nausea and vomiting (acute, delayed or anticipatory) and the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy must be taken into account in developing guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment. Although there are a number of 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonists available, the clinical differences between them are small. The use of drugs with a different mechanism of action, such as the recently introduced neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant, may be a useful adjunct to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists or steroid prophylaxis. The addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic regimens increases the proportion of complete responses to antiemetic therapy. For the use of highly emetogenic chemotherapy in oncology a combination of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended in the acute phase, and dexamethasone plus aprepitant during the subsequent days (many patients do not have their symptoms controlled by 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and steroid alone). In either case, lorazepam can be added as required. For moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a regimen of 5-hydroxytryptamine, dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended in the acute phase, followed by aprepitant alone in the delayed phase. Alternatively, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone can be used in the acute phase, followed by dexamethasone for prophylaxis in the delayed phase. For chemotherapy with a low emetogenicity, either dexamethasone, metoclopramide, prochlorperazine or triethyperazine alone is recommended. No prophylaxis is generally required during the delayed phase and indeed may not be necessary during the acute phase either.

Efficacy of aprepitant in patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy of a combination of aprepitant and conventional antiemetic therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

Patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer who were treated with MEC regimens at the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Fukuoka University Hospital, were included and classified into the following groups: control group (treatment: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists + dexamethasone) and aprepitant group (treatment: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists + dexamethasone + aprepitant). The presence or absence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0; patients with grade 1 or above were considered positive for CINV. Food intake per day, completion of planned chemotherapy, and progression-free survival (PFS) achieved by chemotherapy were investigated.

RESULTS

The complete suppression rate of nausea in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (p = 0.0043). Throughout the study, the food intake in the aprepitant group was greater than that in the control group, with the rate being significantly higher, in particular, on day 5 (p = 0.003). The completion rate of planned chemotherapy was also higher in the aprepitant group (p = 0.042). PFS did not differ significantly, but tended to be improved in the aprepitant group.

CONCLUSIONS

The aprepitant group showed significantly higher complete suppression of nausea, food intake on day 5, and completion of planned chemotherapy than the control group.

Possible anaphylaxis to palonoestron

Anaphylaxis related to drug therapy with 5-HT3 antagonists, in particular, palonosetron has not been reported frequently in the literature. Here a case is presented where the patient possibly had an anaphylactic reaction to palonosetron. In this case report, a 40-year-old female with ovarian cancer developed shortness of breath and hypotension after receiving her palonosetron as part of her premedication for chemotherapy. The patient recovered successfully with fluids and supportive care. This case demonstrates that even after successful treatment in the past with palonosetron a patient may later develop a hypersensitivity to the agent.

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.

Palonosetron for prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death for both men and women worldwide, and lung cancer also has the highest morbidity and mortality rate among all cancers in China. Chemotherapy (CT) is the most effective and most widely used treatment for lung cancer. Nausea and vomiting are still among the most unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy, especially during highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The standard therapy for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists. Palonosetron is a highly potent second-generation selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with stronger binding affinity for the 5-HT3 receptor. Palonosetron showed a high antiemetic activity in preclinical study and pivotal trails enrolling patients treated with moderately or high antiemetic activity drugs. Aim of the study was to verify the activity and safety of palonosetron in patients affected by non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and treated with chemotherapy. Patients with stage II-IV NSCLC and receiving chemotherapy entered into the trial. Informed written consent was required. Patients were randomized to received palonosetron or ondasetron. A single pretreatment dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenous followed was administered. Nausea and vomiting were evaluated over 7-day period. Also the adverse effects were reported. Adverse events were evaluated according to the NCI-CTC criteria. Eighty-nine patients were enrolled into the study. The complete responses during the acute phase were 95.4 and 93.3%, respectively. The main side effects were headache 4.5%, constipation 15.7%, anxiety 2.3%. Palonosetron is a very active antiemetic drug for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in NSCLC patients received chemotherapy.

Effects of an integrated yoga programme on chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis in breast cancer patients

This study examined the effect of an integrated yoga programme on chemotherapy-related nausea and emesis in early operable breast cancer outpatients. Sixty-two subjects were randomly allocated to receive yoga (n = 28) or supportive therapy intervention (n = 34) during the course of their chemotherapy. Both groups had similar socio-demographic and medical characteristics. Intervention consisted of both supervised and home practice of yoga sessions lasting for 60 min daily, while the control group received supportive therapy and coping preparation during their hospital visits over a complete course of chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was the Morrow Assessment of Nausea and Emesis (MANE) assessed after the fourth cycle of chemotherapy. Secondary outcomes included measures for anxiety, depression, quality of life, distressful symptoms and treatment-related toxicity assessed before and during the course of chemotherapy. Following yoga, there was a significant decrease in post-chemotherapy-induced nausea frequency (P = 0.01) and nausea intensity (P = 0.01), and intensity of anticipatory nausea (P = 0.01) and anticipatory vomiting (P = 0.05) as compared with the control group. There was a significant positive correlation between MANE scores and anxiety, depression and distressful symptoms. In conclusion, the results suggest a possible use for stress reduction interventions such as yoga in complementing conventional antiemetics to manage chemotherapy-related nausea and emesis.

Anti-emetic therapy in cancer chemotherapy: current status

Nausea and vomiting are ranked as the most severe side effects to chemotherapy by cancer patients. Twenty years ago, treatment of nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy only had moderate effect and often unpleasant side effects. The drugs used included dopamine(2)-receptor antagonists and corticosteroids alone or combined. This review summarizes the development of anti-emetic therapy, but will focus on the importance of two new classes of anti-emetics: the serotonin(3)- and the neurokinin(1)-receptor antagonists. Furthermore, evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting will be given. The serotonin(3)-receptor antagonists, the first group of drugs developed specifically as anti-emetics, have significantly improved the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced emesis especially in combination with a corticosteroid. The improvement in the prophylaxis of nausea with this combination is however modest. A new group of anti-emetics, the neurokinin(1)-receptor antagonists, has now been developed, and the first drug, aprepitant, was marketed in 2003. Aprepitant increases the effect of a serotonin(3)-receptor antagonist plus a corticosteroid against acute emesis induced by highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and aprepitant is also active in the protection against delayed emesis. The importance of drug-drug interactions with anti-emetics and other drugs, especially cytotoxins, through their competition for cytochrome P450 enzymes, have been studied. At present, there is no evidence that such interactions are of major clinical importance. Evidence-based clinical guidelines are now available and regularly updated, but unfortunately clinical implementation is slow. Recommendations for some types of chemotherapy-induced emesis such as delayed emesis, is based on a low level of evidence. Furthermore, the majority of clinical trials include highly selected groups of patients not permitting definite conclusions for other and more heterogeneous patient groups. Development of new anti-emetics with other mechanisms of action is awaited with interest.

Randomized crossover pharmacokinetic evaluation of subcutaneous versus intravenous granisetron in cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

5-HT3-receptor antagonists are one of the mainstays of antiemetic treatment, and they are administered either i.v. or orally. Nevertheless, sometimes neither administration route is feasible, such as in patients unable to admit oral intake managed in an outpatient setting. Our objective was to evaluate the bioavailability of s.c. granisetron.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive 3 mg of granisetron either s.c. or i.v. in a crossover manner during two cycles. Blood and urine samples were collected after each cycle. Pharmacokinetic parameters observed with each administration route were compared by analysis of variance.

RESULTS

From May to November 2005, 31 patients were included and 25 were evaluable. Subcutaneous granisetron resulted in a 27% higher area under the concentration-time curve for 0-12 hours (AUC(0-12h)) and higher levels at 12 hours, with similar values for AUC(0-24h). The maximum concentration was lower with the s.c. than with the i.v. route and was observed 30 minutes following s.c. administration.

CONCLUSION

Granisetron administered s.c. achieves complete bioavailability. This is the first study that shows that s.c. granisetron might be a valid alternative to i.v. delivery. Further trials to confirm clinical equivalence are warranted. This new route of administration might be especially relevant for outpatient management of emesis in cancer patients.

Safety of ondansetron loading doses in children with cancer

INTRODUCTION

In highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the recommended dose of the serotonin-receptor antagonist ondansetron (5 mg/m(2) q8h) may be insufficient to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In adults, ondansetron-loading doses (OLD) of 32 mg are safe. We aimed to evaluate in children the safety of an OLD of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v., followed by two doses of 5 mg/m(2) q8h.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included all pediatric oncology patients having received > or =1 OLD between 2002 and 2005. Adverse events (AE) definitely, probably, or possibly related to OLD were studied, excluding AE not or unlikely related to the OLD. Associations between potential predictors and at least moderate AE were analyzed by mixed logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 167 patients treated with chemotherapy, 37 (22%) received 543 OLD. The most common AE were hypotension, fatigue, injection site reaction, headache, hot flashes/flushes, and dizziness. At least mild AE were described in 139 OLD (26%), at least moderate AE in 23 (4.2%), and severe AE in 5 (0.9%; exact 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-2.1). Life-threatening or lethal AE were not observed (0.0%; 0.0-0.6). At least moderate AE were significantly more frequent in female patients (odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% CI 1.4-8.8; p = 0.010), after erroneously given second OLD (17.0; 1.9-154; p = 0.012) and higher 24 h cumulative surface corrected dose (1.26 per mg/m(2); 1.06-1.51; p = 0.009). OLD given to infants below 2 years were not associated with more frequent AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron-loading doses of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v. seem to be safe in infants, children, and adolescents.

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.

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.

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.

Chemotherapy-induced emesis in elderly cancer patients: the role of 5-HT3-receptor antagonists in the first 24 hours

OBJECTIVE

This review highlights the need to optimize 5-HT3-receptor-antagonist-based antiemetic therapy for elderly cancer patients, particularly during the first 24 h after receiving chemotherapy, based on knowledge of the chemotherapeutic regimen, comorbidity, polypharmacy, dosing convenience and age-related health.

BACKGROUND

The proportion of elderly people (over 65 years of age) in the general population is increasing. Compared with the general population, elderly people have a greater risk of serious diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. Their chemotherapy can be compromised by factors including comorbidity, declining organ function, polypharmacy, drug-drug interactions and cognitive impairments. The use of aprepitant in this elderly population with many concomitant medications is not discussed. Many chemotherapeutic regimens are highly emetogenic, and nausea and vomiting are rated among the most distressing side effects of chemotherapy. The emetogenic potential of various chemotherapy regimens is reviewed, demonstrating clear differences in severity and time of symptom onset. Such differences are particularly important during the first 24 h after administration, when control of emetic symptoms can help to prevent the occurrence of subsequent episodes. The matter is further complicated by inter-patient differences in susceptibility to nausea and vomiting resulting from multiple factors including gender, age and alcohol intake. Individual patient evaluation is essential to identify those patients most at risk. Elderly patients may also be particularly sensitive to the serious physiological and physical effects of nausea and vomiting. Education about symptom management needs to recognize specific learning barriers in the elderly, such as declining sensory perception or cognitive impairment. 5-HT3-receptor antagonists have long been the gold standard for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Pharmacological differences between 5-HT3-receptor antagonists suggest the need for careful consideration of individual patient characteristics. Selection of the most appropriate agent will optimize antiemetic therapy for elderly cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy-induced emesis in elderly cancer patients needs optimal control by a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist with uncomplicated 24-hour efficacy and good tolerability. Choosing a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist with a long duration of action, low risk of drug-drug interactions and once-daily dosing is important to ensure effective prophylaxis against nausea and vomiting in the elderly and simplify management for patients with cognitive impairment, declining organ function and comorbidity.

5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists in the management of nausea and vomiting in cancer and cancer treatment

The 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists, considered as 'gold standard' therapy for cancer patients, are generally perceived to have similar efficacy and safety profiles, andmost antiemetic guidelines do not distinguish between agents. However, important pharmacological differences exist between agents, which may translate into potential benefits for some patients. In particular, 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists vary in the nature of their receptor antagonism and plasma half-lives, possibly leading to differences in duration of action. Agents with a longer duration of action provide antiemetic protection throughout the acute emetic period (24 h) with a single daily dose, whereas shorter-acting agents, e.g. ondansetron, may require multiple dosing for full efficacy. Differences also exist between agents in their hepatic metabolism and cardiovascular safety, which may present particular problems for elderly patients who often receive additional medications for comorbid conditions, increasing the risk of drug-drug interaction. Recent antiemetic guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend preferential use of palonosetron for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy; however, this agent is newly approved and key clinical questions remain unanswered by clinical trial data. Selection of an appropriate 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonist should be based on proven efficacy and safety, as well as on the individual characteristics of the patient.

Granisetron in the control of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a comparison with other antiemetic therapies

Radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) can be one of the most distressing symptoms of radiotherapy treatment, which if incompletely controlled may last for several weeks with fractionated radiotherapy and prevent completion of the planned treatment course. Current treatment guidelines recommend the use of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists with or without corticosteroids for highly and moderately emetogenic radiotherapy, though only granisetron and ondansetron are currently indicated for RINV in most countries. Granisetron is a potent and highly selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in RINV in both placebo-controlled and comparative studies. In this paper the clinical experience with granisetron in RINV is reviewed, and its efficacy and safety compared with other antiemetic therapies.

Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

This is the first study in which the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant (APR), was evaluated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible breast cancer patients were naive to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide +/- doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (day 1, APR 125 mg, ondansetron (OND) 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, APR 80 qd) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] or a control regimen (day 1, OND 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, OND 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients with complete response, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy, during 120 hours after initiation of chemotherapy in cycle 1. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients with an average item score higher than 6 of 7 on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 866 patients randomized, 857 patients (99%) were assessable. Overall complete response was greater with the aprepitant regimen than with the control regimen (50.8% v 42.5%; P = .015). More patients in the aprepitant group reported minimal or no impact of CINV on daily life (63.5% v 55.6%; P = .019). Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

Is there a pharmacological basis for differences in 5-HT3-receptor antagonist efficacy in refractory patients?

5-HT3-receptor antagonists are the current antiemetic 'gold standard' for chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Interestingly, studies have shown that patients experiencing poor control of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with one antiemetic therapy may respond well to another agent, including a drug of the same class. This review examines pharmacological differences between the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists in order to determine potential reasons for their differing efficacy, particularly in relation to refractory emesis. Differences in drug metabolism by the cytochrome P450 system, inadequate dosing of the respective agents, differences in onset and duration of action, and effects on serotonin release and reuptake are discussed.

A prospective randomized trial of the antiemetic efficacy and cost-effectiveness of intravenous and orally disintegrating tablet of ondansetron in children with cancer

Orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) of ondansetron is a new formulation, which instantaneously disintegrates and disperses in the saliva without need for ingestion of a liquid. This makes the formulation suitable for administration in children. The objective of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and cost of ODT and intravenous (IV) formulation of ondansetron in controlling nausea and vomiting in children receiving chemotherapy regimens without cisplatin. This prospective randomized trial was performed in a single institution to compare ODT and IV formulation of ondansetron for the prevention of acute emesis in a group of 22 children. Study agents were administered 30 min before chemotherapy and 12 hourly after chemotherapy (5 mg/m2 IV or 4-8 mg oral according to body surface area in 56 and 39 courses, respectively). After randomization, IV formulation was administered to some children instead of ODT due to unavailability of this formulation. Complete and major control of emesis was obtained in 92% of patients in the IV group and 93% of patients in the ODT group. In 56 courses with grade III-IV emetogenicity, complete response rates were not different between the two treatment arms. In the courses without corticosteroids complete response rates were not also different between the two arms. The mean costs per successfully controlled courses were 121.3 USD for the IV formulation whereas 63.2 USD for the ODT formulation. The results of this study confirmed that ODT formulation of ondansetron is a safe, well-tolerated, and cost-effective antiemetic for children during non-cisplatin-containing moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Nausea: the neglected symptom?

Advances in antiemetic therapy over the past decade have undoubtedly eased the burden of radiotherapy- and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Despite this, these distressing side-effects of cancer therapy are still experienced by some patients. Moreover, nausea has both a higher incidence and a greater effect on patient quality of life than vomiting. The impact of nausea may therefore warrant more attention than perhaps it has received previously, and there is undoubtedly room for improvement regarding its treatment. Recognizing and treating nausea is complicated by the fact that it can only be measured subjectively by the patient rather than objectively by clinical staff. However, various patient-centred strategies may be employed by nurses to ensure self-reporting of the occurrence and impact of nausea. Nurses may also be best placed to identify patient-related prognostic factors in order to determine the risk of nausea. Antiemetic guidelines recommend the use of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist for the control of emesis with moderate and highly emetogenic cancer therapy. Although guidelines do not distinguish between the available agents, pharmacological differences do exist, and it is necessary to consider this when tailoring regimens to individual patients. As with any therapy, less complicated dosing regimens are likely to improve compliance, an issue that may be particularly pertinent in nauseated patients who are unable to ingest multiple doses. Furthermore, the focus of antiemetic therapy should be on prevention, as the presence and severity of acute symptoms have been linked to occurrence of symptoms in the delayed phase and the likelihood of anticipatory nausea and vomiting with further treatment cycles. This review aims to assess the potentially neglected symptom of nausea and focuses on recognizing and controlling this side-effect of cancer therapy.

Acute emesis: moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

This paper is a review of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as concluded at the Perugia Consensus Conference, which took place at the end of March 2004. The review focuses on new studies appearing since the last consensus conference in 1997. The following issues are addressed: dose and schedule of antiemetics, different groups of antiemetics such as corticosteroids, serotonin (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonists, dopamine D(2) receptor antagonists, and neurokinin (NK(1)) receptor antagonists. Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is also reviewed. Consensus statements are given, including optimal dose and schedule of 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists and of dexamethasone. The new 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonist, palonosetron, is a reasonable alternative to the well-established agents of this class--ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron and dolasetron. It is concluded that the best prophylaxis in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is still the combination of one of the 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists and dexamethasone. The results of studies adding a NK(1)-receptor antagonist to this combination are awaited and might change future recommendations.

Granisetron: An Update on its Clinical Use in the Management of Nausea and Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are typical side effects of cytotoxic therapy and some surgical procedures. These symptoms can represent a major therapeutic challenge and, if inadequately controlled by antiemetic treatment, will result in increased mortality, morbidity, and health care costs. However, the management of nausea and vomiting has improved greatly in recent years following the introduction of the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists, known as 'setrons.' In light of recent developments in antiemetic care, including the approval of the first neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist aprepitant (Emend; Merck and Company, Inc.; West Point, PA) and a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (Aloxi; MGI Pharma; Minneapolis, MN), this article provides an update on the clinical experience gained with the 5-HT3-receptor antagonist granisetron (Kytril; Roche Laboratories, Inc.; Nutley, NJ) for the management of chemotherapy-induced, radiation-induced, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and also reviews its use in special patient populations. Granisetron is a potent and highly selective 5-HT3-receptor antagonist that has little or no affinity for other receptors, a characteristic that is thought to underlie the favorable side-effect and safety profiles of this agent. Extensive clinical trial data have shown granisetron to be an effective and well-tolerated agent for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the oncology and surgical settings. Granisetron has also been shown to be effective and well tolerated in special populations, such as patients refractory to antiemetic treatment, patients with hepatic or renal impairment, and children. Data also suggest that its safety profile and minimal potential for drug-drug interactions would make it an antiemetic agent of choice for elderly cancer patients.

5-HT3 receptor antagonists for prevention of late acute-onset emesis

OBJECTIVE

To review the currently available literature on the efficacy of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists in the prevention of late acute-onset chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (12-24 h after cytotoxic treatment).

DATA SOURCES

Primary articles were identified by PubMed search (performed in March 2004) and through secondary sources. Search terms included granisetron, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, acute, chemotherapy, nausea, and vomiting (a further search was performed for palonosetron in March 2004).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All studies that performed regular assessments (every 2-6 h) of antiemetic control over the first 24 hours with 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists were evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Current guidelines recommend the use of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting but do not differentiate between the available agents. However, there is variability in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of these agents, and this has implications for dosing regimen, safety, efficacy, and potential drug-drug interactions. Cytotoxic agents vary in the time profile of their emetic effect; this must be considered when choosing an appropriate 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist. The optimal agent should be simple to administer and provide safe and effective antiemetic protection over the whole 24-hour period.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences between the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists have important consequences for their dosing and efficacy in the control of late acute-onset chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Palonosetron improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a double-blind randomized phase III trial comparing single doses of palonosetron with ondansetron

BACKGROUND

Although all first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists demonstrate efficacy in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), effective prevention of delayed CINV has not yet been achieved. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron, a novel, second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, with ondansetron.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, stratified, phase III study, 570 adult cancer patients were randomized to receive a single i.v. dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg, palonosetron 0.75 mg or ondansetron 32 mg, each administered 30 min before initiation of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with no emetic episodes and no rescue medication [complete response (CR)] during the 24 h after chemotherapy administration (acute period). Secondary end points included efficacy in treatment of delayed CINV (</=5 days post-chemotherapy) and overall tolerability.

RESULTS

563 patients were evaluable for efficacy. CR rates were significantly higher (P <0.01) for palonosetron 0.25 mg than ondansetron during the acute (0-24 h) (81.0% versus 68.6%, respectively), delayed (24-120 h) (74.1% versus 55.1%) and overall (0-120 h) (69.3% versus 50.3%) periods. CR rates achieved with palonosetron 0.75 mg were numerically higher but not statistically different from ondansetron during all three time intervals. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

A single i.v. dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg was significantly superior to i.v. ondansetron 32 mg in the prevention of acute and delayed CINV.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: the importance of acute antiemetic control

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most feared side effects of cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can be broadly categorized as acute (occurring within 24 hours of therapy), delayed (persisting for 6-7 days after therapy), or anticipatory (occurring prior to chemotherapy administration). Breakthrough and refractory nausea and vomiting describe the symptoms of uncontrolled emesis. Evidence suggests that good control of nausea and vomiting during the acute period correlates with the control of delayed emesis. Conversely, protection failure during the first 24 hours has a high predictive value for delayed emesis in the same cycle. The 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists, regarded as the 'gold standard' in antiemetic therapy, are the first-line treatment for moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens in adults and children. Evidence suggests that the 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists administered in combination with corticosteroids afford the best protection from symptoms of acute emesis and, by extrapolation, the most effective prevention of delayed emesis. Antiemetic therapeutic guidelines stress that the goal of therapy is to prevent cytostatic-induced nausea and vomiting. Therefore, the prophylactic use of the most effective antiemetic regimen-taking into consideration the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and individual patient characteristics-must be adhered to in order to prevent acute, delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting.

Measuring chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis (CINE) is one of the most dreaded side effects of cancer therapy. To investigate the influence of these symptoms on a patient's quality of life (QOL), a validated tool measuring many domains is needed.

METHODS

A QOL questionnaire consisting of scales from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, the Morrow Assessment of Nausea and Emesis, the Osoba Nausea and Emesis Module, and new items specific to nausea, emesis, and retching was constructed and administered daily for 7-9 days to outpatients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Test-retest and internal consistency reliabilities ranged from 0.44 to 0.84 and from 0.59 to 0.85, respectively. Item and scale correlations indicated good convergent and discriminant validity. Scales and items measuring similar factors (e.g., severity of emesis and severity of nausea) had strong correlations than did scales measuring dissimilar factors (e.g., cognitive functioning and physical functioning). The validity of known groups was demonstrated by significant differences (P < 0.01) in patients' QOL scores between days with no episodes of nausea, emesis, or retching, days with 1 or 2 episodes, and days with more than 3 episodes. Patients' QOL significantly decreased as the number of episodes per day increased (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A CINE QOL questionnaire that successfully measures the short-term impact of nausea, emesis, and retching on patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy has been developed, largely as a battery of preexisting questionnaires. The psychometric properties of the new questionnaire show adequate reliability and validity to warrant its use in clinical trials and outcomes studies. CINE adversely affects many domains within a patient's QOL.

Current position of 5HT3 antagonists and the additional value of NK1 antagonists; a new class of antiemetics

The advent of the 5HT(3) receptor antagonists (5HT(3) antagonists) in the 1990 s and the combination with dexamethasone has resulted in acute emesis protection in 70% of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Despite complete protection in the acute phase, however, 40% of patients as yet have symptoms in the delayed phase. 5HT(3) antagonists and dexamethasone are only modestly effective in this delayed phase. Moreover, the antiemetic protection over repeated cycles is not sustained. Neurokinine 1 receptor antagonists (NK(1) antagonists) belong to a new class of antiemetic agents that specifically target the NK(1) receptor, which is involved in both the acute and, particularly, the delayed phase of emesis. Clinical studies have demonstrated that the addition of NK(1) antagonists to dual therapy with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone improves the acute emesis protection by a further 10-15%. In the delayed phase, the proportion of patients remaining free of emesis increases by even 20-30%. Since the effectiveness of this triplet combination was found to be sustained over six cycles of chemotherapy, the chance for an individual patient to remain completely protected during both the acute and the delayed phase over six chemotherapy cycles is nearly doubled.

Participation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer clinical trials

PURPOSE

Although 61% of new cases of cancer occur among the elderly, recent studies indicate that the elderly comprise only 25% of participants in cancer clinical trials. Further investigation into the reasons for low elderly participation is warranted. Our objective was to evaluate the participation of the elderly in clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and assess the impact of protocol exclusion criteria on elderly participation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis using NCI data, analyzing patient and trial characteristics for 59,300 patients enrolled onto 495 NCI-sponsored, cooperative group trials, active from 1997 through 2000. Our main outcome measure was the proportion of elderly patients enrolled onto cancer clinical trials compared with the proportion of incident cancer patients who are elderly.

RESULTS

Overall, 32% of participants in phase II and III clinical trials were elderly, compared with 61% of patients with incident cancers in the United States who are elderly. The degree of underrepresentation was more pronounced in trials for early-stage cancers than in trials for late-stage cancers (P <.001). Furthermore, protocol exclusion criteria on the basis of organ-system abnormalities and functional status limitations were associated with lower elderly participation. We estimate that if protocol exclusions were relaxed, elderly participation in cancer trials would be 60%.

CONCLUSION

The elderly are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials relative to their disease burden. Older patients are more likely to have medical histories that make them ineligible for clinical trials because of protocol exclusions. Insurance coverage for clinical trials is one step toward improvement of elderly access to clinical trials. Without a change in study design or requirements, this step may not be sufficient.

5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists for the treatment of nausea and vomiting: a reappraisal of their side-effect profile

Nausea and vomiting can cause considerable distress and discomfort to patients undergoing chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery. Several classes of antiemetic agents exist to combat these side effects, though the 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists have become the first-line treatment choice for many cancer patients and are considered the "gold standard" in antiemetic therapy. Compared with the older generation antiemetic drugs, 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists are effective, well tolerated, and associated with few side effects. However, emerging differences among these agents suggest that the incidence and/or intensity of adverse events should not be regarded as a class effect. The side-effect profile of any supportive care therapy is particularly important in certain subgroups of patients, including pediatric patients and the elderly, as well as those suffering comorbid conditions, such as cardiovascular disease and renal or hepatic impairment. Indeed, dolasetron is associated with cardiovascular effects, and thus, should be used with extreme caution in patients who suffer from or may develop prolongation of cardiac conduction intervals. Ondansetron, on the other hand, is associated with a greater incidence of central nervous system side effects than either dolasetron or ondansetron, and pharmacokinetic parameters are affected in patients with hepatic impairment, thereby requiring dose adjustments. Clinicians are encouraged to evaluate patients on an individual basis when choosing which 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonist to prescribe.