Antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in haematologic malignancies patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Which is the best standard of care? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic prophylaxis in haematological patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy as part of their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioning regimens.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane database to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of antiemetic prophylaxis. Studies in English, French, Italian or Spanish were included. This review is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42023406380.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were analysed. The antiemetic regimens evaluated ranged from monotherapy with 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor 3 antagonists (5-HT3RAs) to complex combinations including olanzapine, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3RAs and corticosteroids. Complete response rates for triplet or quadruple regimens varied between 23.5% and 81.9%. Although no significant adverse effects were observed, minor symptoms such as diarrhoea, constipation, sedation and headaches were reported.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence on HSCT antiemetic therapy highlights its benefits but fails to provide clear clinical directions. The choice between triplet and quadruplet therapies for different patient scenarios is still uncertain. Until more detailed research is available, healthcare providers must rely on the latest guidelines and their judgement to customise antiemetic care for each patient's specific needs and risks.

A nurse-led multidomain intervention to improve the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with head and neck cancers: A randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the effect of a nurse-led multidomain intervention on chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC).

METHODS

Ninety-two HNSCC patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy were divided into intervention group (n = 45) and control group (n = 47). The control group received usual care of CINV, which consisted of administration of antiemetics according to physicians' preference, education about CINV control and dietary recommendations provided by primary nurses. The intervention group received nurse-led, evidence-based multidomain management, including nurse-led CINV risk factors assessment, education on prevention and control of CINV, antiemetics following guidelines, dietary strategies, and relaxation therapy. The number of patients who experienced CINV was collected. The severity of CINV was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. The influence of CINV on patient's quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).

RESULTS

The incidence and the severity of nausea and vomiting in the intervention group were significantly lower than those in the control group within 5 days after chemotherapy, and the scores of the dimension of nausea and vomiting in the intervention group were significantly higher than those in the control group [63.00 (50.00-63.00) vs 40.00(28.00-63.00), 63.00(63.00-63.00) vs 63.00 (43.00-63.00)], the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-led multidomain intervention can reduce the incidence and the severity of CINV in patients with HNSCC who were treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and thus reduced the influence of CINV on patients' quality of life.

THE CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05792228.

2023 MASCC and ESMO guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

•Nausea and vomiting are considered amongst the most troublesome adverse events for patients receiving antineoplastics. •The guideline covers emetic risk classification, prevention and management of treatment-induced nausea and vomiting. •The Consensus Committee consisted of 34 multidisciplinary, health care professionals and three patient advocates. •Recommendations are based on evidence-based data (level of evidence) and the authors’ collective expert opinion (grade). •All recommendations are for the first course of antineoplastic therapy; modifications may be needed in subsequent courses.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine improves the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a retrospective study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite a standard triple antiemetic regimen of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone is recommended, how to control the protracted CINV in ASCT setting remains an intractable problem. Here, we retrospectively analyze CINV data of 100 patients who received either SEAM (semustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) or MEL140-200 (high-dose melphalan) before ASCT, evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine (FTO), and compare the results to those of patients who received a standard regimen of aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (ATD). The overall rate of complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy, is 70% in the FTO group compared to 36% in the ATD group. Although CR rates are comparable in the acute phase between the two groups, significantly more patients treated by FTO achieve CR in the delayed phase than those treated by ATD (74% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Moreover, FTO treatment significantly reduced the percentage of patients who are unable to eat, as well as the requirement for rescue medications. Both regimens are well tolerated and most adverse events (AEs) were generally mild and transient. In conclusion, the antiemetic strategy containing multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant is safe and effective for preventing CINV in lymphoma and MM patients, particularly in the delayed phase.

Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.

The Prevention and Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting During Tumor Therapy

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common and distressing side effects of tumor therapy. Despite prophylaxis, 40-50% of patients suffer from nausea, and 20-30% from vomiting. Antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment are therefore of great importance for improving patients' quality of life and preventing sequelae such as tumor cachexia.

METHODS

The recommendations presented here are based on international and national guidelines, updated with publications retrieved by a selective search in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases, with special attention to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that have appeared in the past 5 years since the German clinical practice guideline on supportive therapy was published.

RESULTS

Risk-adjusted prevention and treatment is based on the identification of treatment-related and patient-specific risk factors, including female sex and younger age. Parenteral tumor therapy is divided into four risk classes (minimal, low, moderate, high), and oral tumor therapy into two (minimal/low, moderate/high). In radiotherapy, the radiation field is of decisive importance. The antiemetic drugs most commonly used are 5-HT3-RA, NK1-RA, and dexamethasone; olanzapine has proven beneficial as an add-on or rescue drug. The use of steroids in patients being treated with drug combinations including checkpoint inhibitors is discussed controversially because of the potentially reduced therapeutic response. Benzodiazepines, dimenhydrinate, and cannabinoids can be used as backup antiemetics. Acupuncture/acupressure, ginger, and progressive muscle relaxation are pos - sible alternative methods.

CONCLUSION

Detailed, effective, risk profile-adapted algorithms for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting are now available for patients undergoing classic chemotherapy regimens or combined radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Optimal symptom control for patients undergoing oral tumor therapy over multiple days in the outpatient setting remains a challenge.

One-Day Versus Three-Day Dexamethasone with NK1RA for Patients Receiving Carboplatin and Moderate Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy, which limits administration of DEX to day one, is reportedly non-inferior to conventional antiemetic regimens comprising multiple-day DEX. However, the usefulness of the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA] + serotonin receptor antagonist [5HT3RA] + DEX) for carboplatin and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) has not been clarified.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of antiemetics for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with carboplatin and MEC. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the antiemesis efficacy of three-day DEX with NK1RA (3-DEX + NK1RA) and one-day DEX with NK1RA (1-DEX + NK1RA). The primary outcome was complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP). The secondary outcome was no nausea during the delayed phase (NN-DP).

RESULTS

Seventeen trials involving 4534 patients were included. The proportion who experienced CR-DP was 82.5% (95% credible interval [CI], 73.9-88.6) and 73.5% (95% CI, 62.8-80.9) among those who received 3-DEX + NK1RA and 1-DEX + NK1RA, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two regimens. However, 3-DEX + NK1RA tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA, with an absolute risk difference of 9.0% (95% CI, -2.3 to 21.1) in CR-DP and 24.7% (95% CI: -14.9 to 54.6) in NN-DP. 3-DEX + NK1RA also tended to be superior to 1-DEX + NK1RA in patients who received carboplatin-based chemotherapy, for whom the absolute risk difference was 12.3% (95% CI, -3.2 to 30.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Care is needed when administering the DEX-sparing strategy in combination with NK1RA to patients receiving carboplatin and non-carboplatin MEC.

Premedications for Cancer Therapies: A Primer for the Hematology/Oncology Provider

Chemotherapeutic agents and radiation therapy are associated with numerous potential adverse events (AEs). Many of these common AEs, namely chemotherapy- or radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, hypersensitivity reactions, and edema, can lead to deleterious outcomes (such as treatment nonadherence or cessation, or poor clinical outcomes) if not prevented appropriately. The occurrence and severity of these AEs can be prevented with the correct prescribing of prophylactic medications, often called "premedications." The advanced practitioner in hematology/oncology should have a good understanding of which chemotherapeutic agents are known to place patients at risk for these adverse events as well as be able to determine appropriate prophylactic medications to employ in the prevention of these adverse events. While several guidelines and literature exist regarding best practices for prophylaxis strategies, differences among guidelines and quality of data should be explored in order to accurately implement patient-specific recommendations. Herein, we review the existing literature for prophylaxis and summarize best practices.

Pharmaceutical intervention for adverse events improves quality of life in patients with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy

Background

The effect of pharmaceutical intervention to treat adverse events on quality of life (QOL) in outpatients receiving cancer chemotherapy is unclear. We investigated whether pharmaceutical intervention provided by pharmacists in collaboration with physicians improves QOL with outpatient cancer chemotherapy.

Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective descriptive study of pharmaceutical intervention for patients receiving outpatient cancer chemotherapy at Gifu University Hospital between September 2017 and July 2020. We assessed patient QOL using the Japanese version of the EuroQol 5 Dimension5 Level (EQ-5D-5L). Adverse events were graded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0. We compared the EQ-5D-5L utility value and incidence of grade 2 or higher adverse events before and after pharmaceutical intervention.

Results

Our analysis included 151 patients who underwent 210 chemotherapy cycles. Pharmaceutical intervention significantly improved patients’ EQ-5D-5L utility values from 0.8197 to 0.8603 (P < 0.01). EQ-5D-5L utility values were significantly improved after pharmaceutical intervention for nausea and vomiting (pre-intervention 0.8145, post-intervention 0.8603, P = 0.016), peripheral neuropathy (pre-intervention 0.7798, post-intervention 0.7988, P = 0.032) and pain (pre-intervention 0.7625, post-intervention 0.8197, P = 0.035). Although not statistically significant, the incidence of grade 2 or higher adverse events, including nausea and vomiting, dermopathy, pain, oral mucositis, diarrhea and dysgeusia, tended to be lower post-intervention than pre-intervention.

Conclusions

Pharmaceutical intervention by pharmacists in collaboration with physicians may improve QOL in patients undergoing outpatient cancer chemotherapy.

Netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA) for Preventing Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

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 and safety of netupitant/palonosetron combination (NEPA) in preventing nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients undergoing to chemomobilization before autologous stem cell transplantation

Purpose

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is particularly challenging for patients receiving highly emetogenic preparative regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) due to the daily and continuous emetogenic stimulus of the multiple day chemotherapy. While studies have shown effective prevention of CINV during the conditioning phase with NK₁ receptor antagonist (NK₁RA)-containing regimens, there have been no studies evaluating antiemetic use during chemomobilization prior to ASCT.

Methods

This multicenter, open-label, phase IIa study evaluated the efficacy of every-other-day dosing of NEPA administered during chemomobilization in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eighty-one patients participated.

Results

Response rates were 77.8% for complete response (no emesis and no rescue use), 72.8% for complete control (complete response and no more than mild nausea), 86.4% for no emesis, and 82.7% for no rescue use during the overall phase (duration of chemomobilization through 48 h after). NEPA was well tolerated with no treatment-related adverse events reported.

Conclusion

NEPA, administered with a simplified every-other-day schedule, show to be very effective in preventing CINV in patients at high risk of CINV undergoing to chemomobilization of hematopoietic stem cells prior to ASCT.

Netupitant/palonosetron without dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting in patients with multiple myeloma receiving high-dose melphalan for autologous stem cell transplantation: a single-center experience

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent adverse events compromising quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, CINV prophylaxis is still lacking uniformity for high-dose melphalan (HDM), which is used to condition patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is administered with dexamethasone (DEXA) for CINV prevention in several chemotherapy regimens. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of NEPA, without DEXA, in preventing CINV in 106 adult patients with MM receiving HDM and ASCT. All patients had antiemetic prophylaxis with multiple doses of NEPA 1 h before the start of conditioning and after 72 h and 120 h. A complete response (CR) was observed in 99 (93%) patients at 120 h (overall phase). The percentage of patients with complete control was 93%. The CR rate during the acute phase was 94% (n = 100). During the delayed phase, the CR rate was 95% (n = 101). Grade 1 nausea and vomiting were experienced by 82% and 12% of the patients, respectively. Grade 2 nausea was reported in 18% and vomiting in 10% of patients. Our results showed, for the first time, that NEPA, without DEXA, was a well-tolerated and effective antiemetic option for MM patients receiving HDM followed by ASCT.

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of intravenous thiamine for prevention of delirium following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To determine if high dose intravenous (IV) thiamine can prevent delirium during hospitalization following allogeneic HSCT. Secondarily, we evaluated the effects of high dose IV thiamine on thiamine levels and explored risk factors for delirium.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT at a U.S. academic medical center between October 2017 and March 2020. 64 participants were randomized 1:1 to thiamine 200 mg IV three times daily for 7 days or placebo. We used the Delirium Rating Scale to assess for delirium. Delirium incidence was compared between groups using the chi-square test. Group differences in time to onset and duration of delirium were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. Fisher's Exact and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were used to examine associations between pre-transplantation variables and delirium.

RESULTS

61 participants were analyzed. Delirium incidence (25% vs. 21%, Chi-square (df = 1) = 0.12, p = 0.73), time to onset, duration, and severity were not different between study arms. Immediately following the intervention, thiamine levels were higher in the thiamine arm (275 vs. 73 nmol/L, t-test (df = 57) = 13.63, p < 0.0001), but not predictive of delirium. Variables associated with delirium in our sample included disease severity, corticosteroid exposure, infection, and pre-transplantation markers of nutrition.

CONCLUSION

High dose IV thiamine did not prevent delirium in patients receiving allogeneic HSCT. Given the multiple contributors to delirium in this population, further research regarding the efficacy of multicomponent interventions may be needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT03263442.

FUNDING

Rising Tide Foundation for Clinical Cancer Research.

Reconsidering Dexamethasone for Antiemesis when Combining Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy

Whether the immune suppressive action of glucocorticoid steroids, such as dexamethasone, might reduce the benefits of cancer immunotherapy has long been a concern. Observations that established tumor regressions in response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) often persist, despite the use of steroids to mitigate ICI-related autoimmune breakthrough, are not sufficiently reassuring, because these observations do not address the potential blunting of immune priming at the initiation of ICI therapy. With increasing indications for ICI in combination with chemotherapy, this issue merits reconsideration. Professional society guidance advises that dexamethasone should be used as first-line prophylaxis for nausea and vomiting in patients receiving ICI and highly emetogenic chemotherapy combination regimens. Here, we review the availability of data on this subject and propose an alternative approach focused on the adoption of steroid minimization or sparing for prophylaxis of nausea until the underlying immune biology is better understood.

Antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimen with aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and provide updated information for clinical practice.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and 3 Chinese literature databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing standard regimen (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and glucocorticoid) with aprepitant triple regimen (aprepitant plus the standard regimen) for preventing CINV were screened. Literature selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation were performed by 2 reviewers independently. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 51 randomized controlled trials were finally included in the systematic review. Compared with the standard regimen, the aprepitant triple regimen significantly improved the complete response in the overall (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.71-2.07), acute (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.65-2.32) and delayed (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.70-2.27) phases, regardless of emetogenic risk of chemotherapy. Aprepitant could also significantly enhance the proportions of patients who have no emesis, nausea, or use of rescue medication respectively in the overall, acute and/or delayed phases. Aprepitant was found to be associated with decreased risk of constipation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97), but increased the incidence of hiccup (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05, 1.51). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups on other safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The aprepitant triple regimen is effective for the prevention of CINV in patients being treated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and has a significant tendency to reduce the risk of constipation and increase the incidence of hiccup.

Efficacy and safety of multiple doses of NEPA without dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day and high-dose chemotherapy in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a phase IIa, multicenter study

Despite the availability of several antiemetics, clinical findings show that control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a serious concern for hematological patients, mainly for those receiving multiple-day (MD) and high-dose (HD) chemotherapy (CT). For CINV prophylaxis, 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 receptor antagonists (5HT₃-RAs) and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists (NK₁-RAs) are usually administered together with dexamethasone, which may increase the risk of serious infections in patients undergoing myeloablative treatment. The rationale of this multicenter, open-label and phase IIa study was to explore the efficacy of multiple doses of NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) given as an every-other-day regimen without dexamethasone in preventing CINV in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (R/R-NHL), eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and treated with MD-HD-CT. Seventy patients participated to the study. According to the adopted Fleming one-stage design, the primary endpoint of this study was achieved. The CR values were 87.1% (primary endpoint, overall phase: days 1–8), 88.6% (acute phase: days 1–6), and 98.6% (delayed phase: days 7–8), while complete control (CR with no more than mild nausea) was 85.7% (overall phase), 88.6% (acute phase), and 95.7% (delayed phase). Moderate and severe episodes of nausea were reported by less than 10% of patients in the overall phase and less than 5% in both the acute and delayed phases. Regarding safety, NEPA was well tolerated with only one adverse event (constipation) evaluated as possibly related to NEPA administration. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that multiple alternate dosing of NEPA without the addition of dexamethasone is highly effective for preventing nausea and vomiting in this difficult setting, with a good tolerability profile.

Low-dose peripheral blood stem cell graft after high-dose chemotherapy - an evaluation of hematopoietic reconstitution

Background

High-dose (HD) chemotherapy followed by autologous blood stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) patients. However, the collection of sufficient peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) grafts can be challenging, and the question arises whether reinfusion of low-dose grafts will lead to a hematopoietic recovery.

Methods

The hematopoietic recovery of 148 MM patients who underwent HD melphalan chemotherapy and received PBSC transplants with varying CD34+ cells doses (3–4 × 10⁶ [n = 86], 2–2.5 × 10⁶ [n = 53], < 2 × 10⁶ [n = 9] per kg body weight [bw]) was analyzed in this retrospective single-center study.

Results

All patients reached hematopoietic reconstitution, even those who received < 2 × 10⁶ CD34+ cells/kg bw. 62 (42%) patients received granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). The median duration to leukocyte recovery ≥1.0 × 10⁹/L was 12 days in every group. The median duration to platelet recovery ≥20 × 10⁹/L was 11, 13 and 13 days, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, a low number of reinfused CD34+ cells was associated with prolonged time until leukocyte reconstitution (p = 0.010, HR 0.607) and platelet recovery (p < 0.001, HR 0.438). G-CSF support significantly accelerated leukocyte (p < 0.001, HR 16.742) but not platelet reconstitution.

Conclusion

In conclusion, reinfusion of low- and even very-low-dose PBSC grafts leads to sufficient hematopoietic reconstitution. No severe adverse events were observed during or after HD chemotherapy and ASCT in the analyzed cohort. While the impact of CD34+ cell dose is marginal, G-CSF significantly accelerates the leukocyte recovery.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multicenter survey of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) transplant programs

A survey within hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) centers of the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO) was performed in order to describe current antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT. The multicenter survey was performed by a questionnaire, covering the main areas on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): antiemetic prophylaxis guidelines used, antiemetic prophylaxis in different conditioning regimens, and methods of CINV evaluation. The survey was carried out in November 2016, and it was repeated 6 months after the publication of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) specific guidelines on antiemetic prophylaxis in HSCT. The results show a remarkable heterogeneity of prophylaxis among the various centers and a significant difference between the guidelines and the clinical practice. In the main conditioning regimens, the combination of a serotonin₃ receptor antagonist (5-HT₃-RA) with dexamethasone and neurokin₁ receptor antagonist (NK1-RA), as recommended by MASCC/ESMO guidelines, increased from 0 to 15% (before the publication of the guidelines) to 9-30% (after the publication of the guidelines). This study shows a lack of compliance with specific antiemetic guidelines, resulting mainly in under-prophylaxis. Concerted strategies are required to improve the current CINV prophylaxis, to draft shared common guidelines, and to increase the knowledge and the adherence to the current recommendations for CINV prophylaxis in the specific field of HSCT.

Mirtazapine, a dopamine receptor inhibitor, as a secondary prophylactic for delayed nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy: an open label, randomized, multicenter phase III trial

Background We examined the efficacy of mirtazapine in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients and methods Patients who had experienced delayed emesis and would be subsequently scheduled for at least three more cycles of the same chemotherapy were randomly assigned to either a mirtazapine (15 mg daily on days 2-4) or a control group. In addition, both groups received a standard triplet regimen comprising aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone (7.5 mg on days 2-4). The chemotherapy regimens were either an epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide regimen or cisplatin-containing regimens. The primary end point was a complete response (no emesis and no rescue treatment) to the delayed phase (25-120 h post-chemotherapy) during Cycle 1. The impact on quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. Results Of 95 enrolled patients, 46 were assigned to the mirtazapine group and 49 to the control group. The complete response rate in the delayed phase during Cycle 1 was significantly higher with mirtazapine than in the control group (78.3% versus 49.0%, P = 0.003). The main adverse effects of mirtazapine were mild to moderate somnolence and weight gain. Mean total FLIE scores were similar between the two arms. Conclusions This is the first randomized prospective study to show that adding mirtazapine has a substantial and statistically significant benefit with good tolerance in patients with breast cancer who have experienced delayed emesis following the same prior HEC. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02336750).

Simultaneous Determination of Co-administrated Deflazacort, Aprepitant and Granisetron in Dosage Forms and Spiked Human Plasma by RP-HPLC/PAD

A selective reversed phase high performance liquid chromatography/photodiode array detector (RP-HPLC/PAD) method has been developed for simultaneous determination of the three co-administrated deflazacort, aprepitant and granisetron drugs used with chemotherapy. The three cited drugs have been chromatographed on C18 column using a mobile phase consisting of acetonitrile–0.2% v/v triethylamine (80:20 v/v, pH of 6.6 ± 0.05) with isocratic elution and monitored by photodiode array at 220 nm. International conference on harmonization (ICH) guidelines were followed to validate the developed method. Successful application of the developed method was assessed by the simultaneous determination of the studied drugs in pure forms, dosage forms and plasma samples in the ranges of 0.2–20, 0.4–40 and 0.2–20 μg/mL for deflazacort, aprepitant and granisetron, respectively.

The latest consensus on antiemetics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review summarizes and discuss the most recent updated antiemetic consensus.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two new neurokinin (NK)1-receptor antagonists, netupitant and rolapitant, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency and incorporated in the latest versions of the MASCC/ESMO, ASCO, and NCCN guidelines. Guidelines all recommend a combination of a serotonin (5-HT)3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a NK1-receptor antagonist in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) with the addition of the multireceptor targeting agent, olanzapine, as an option in cisplatin or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. A combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a NK1-receptor antagonist is also recommended in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy, although based on a lower level of evidence. In spite of the development of new antiemetics, nausea has remained a significant adverse effect. Olanzapine is an effective antinausea agent, but sedation can be a problem. Therefore, the effect and tolerability of multitargeting, nonsedative agents like amisulpride, should be explored.

SUMMARY

Guidelines recommend a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and an NK1-receptor antagonist in HEC and carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The addition of olanzapine can be useful in cisplatin-based and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy in particular if the main problem is nausea.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after high-dose melphalan and stem cell transplantation: review of the evidence and suggestions

INTRODUCTION

High-dose melphalan (HDMel) is the most common conditioning chemotherapy regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) in patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM). No consensus exists for the emetogenicity or prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in this regimen.

METHODS

Data on the incidence and efficacy/safety of CINV prophylaxis among patients affected by MM undergoing autologous SCT with the HDMel regimen was extracted from electronic databases and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving multiple CINV prophylaxis regimens were identified and included. No consensus on HDMel emetogenicity was reached, but most studies summarized the emetogenicity as moderate-high risk. An aprepitant-based three-drug regimen (aprepitant + serotonin receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) + dexamethasone) showed better efficacy than a two-drug regimen (5HT3RA + dexamethasone) for CINV prevention without increasing the frequency in adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The aprepitant-based three-drug regimen should be the regimen of choice for CINV prophylaxis for MM patients undergoing autologous SCT with HDMel conditioning.

A phase II open-label study of aprepitant as anti-emetic prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) undergoing induction chemotherapy

Despite the widespread use of 5-HT₃ antagonists as anti-emetic prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving induction chemotherapy, nausea and vomiting persist in many cases. We performed a Phase II single-arm study evaluating the use of aprepitant on days 1-5, in combination with a 5-HT antagonist on days 1-3, in AML patients undergoing induction chemotherapy with daunorubicin on days 1-3 plus cytarabine, given as a continuous infusion, on days 1-7. This was compared to a retrospective cohort of AML patients that received the same chemotherapy regimen with a 5-HT antagonist but without aprepitant. The cumulative incidence of vomiting/retching by the end of day 5 was significantly lower in the aprepitant vs. the control group (26.3 vs. 52.8%, p = 0.013). The cumulative incidence of nausea by the end of day 5 was 61% in the aprepitant group vs. 75% in the control group. The total use of supplemental anti-emetics on days 2-5 was also significantly lower in the aprepitant group (p = 0.01). In contrast, the cumulative incidence of vomiting/retching by the end of day 8, the incidence of vomiting/retching on days 6-8, and the use of anti-emetics on days 6-8, were not significantly different between the two groups. The results suggest that the use of aprepitant may be associated with a lower rate of emesis during aprepitant dosing days, but not afterward. However, this requires confirmation in a randomized trial.

HTX-019: polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may occur during the acute (0-24 h) or delayed (25-120 h) phase following chemotherapy administration. The addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic regimens containing a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone has resulted in improved CINV prophylaxis. Due to numerous adverse events and hypersensitivity reactions associated with fosaprepitant, a commonly used neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, there remains an unmet need for better-tolerated formulations. HTX-019, the US FDA-approved polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free aprepitant injectable emulsion, is bioequivalent to and better tolerated (fewer treatment-emergent adverse events) than fosaprepitant. HTX-019 represents a valuable alternative to fosaprepitant for CINV prophylaxis.

Evolving role of neurokinin 1-receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

To examine pharmacologic and clinical characteristics of neurokinin 1 (NK₁)-receptor antagonists (RAs) for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a literature search was performed for clinical studies in patients at risk of CINV with any approved NK₁ RAs in the title or abstract: aprepitant (capsules or oral suspension), HTX019 (intravenous [IV] aprepitant), fosaprepitant (IV aprepitant prodrug), rolapitant (tablets or IV), and fixed-dose tablets combining netupitant or fosnetupi-tant (IV netupitant prodrug) with the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃) RA palonosetron (oral or IV). All NK₁ RAs are effective, but exhibit important differences in efficacy against acute and delayed CINV. The magnitude of benefit of NK₁-RA-containing three-drug vs two-drug regimens is greater for delayed vs acute CINV. Oral rolapitant has the longest half-life of available NK₁ RAs, but as a consequence should not be administered more frequently than every 2 weeks. In general, NK₁ RAs are well tolerated; however, IV rolapitant was recently removed from US distribution, due to hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis, and IV fosaprepitant is associated with infusion-site reactions and hypersensitivity presumed related to its polysorbate 80 excipient. Also, available NK₁ RAs have potential drug–drug interactions. Adding an NK₁ RA to 5HT₃ RA and dexamethasone significantly improves CINV control vs the two-drug regimen. Newer NK₁ RAs offer more formulation options, higher acute-phase plasma levels, or improved tolerability, and increase clinicians’ opportunities to maximize benefits of this important class of antiemetics.

A unique schedule of palonosetron, ondansetron, and dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy

Myeloablative chemotherapy administered prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) is associated with a significant amount of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We conducted a phase II trial to assess the safety, efficacy, and impact on quality of life when palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg combined with dexamethasone were given on the final or only day of myeloablative chemotherapy for auto-SCT. The primary end point of this study was the incidence of achieving a delayed CINV complete response defined as no emetic episode and no use of rescue medications during the 24-120 h period post chemotherapy. Eighty-five patients were enrolled in the study and received PAL. A delayed CINV complete response was achieved in 15% of patients. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no associated differences between age, gender, diagnosis, or regimen. By day 5 after PAL, the mean nausea severity was 0.91 ± 2.45 vs. 0.09 ± 1.58 at baseline (p = 0.012). Quality of life measurements demonstrated similar quality of life between baseline and day 3. By day 6 however, nausea alone had a statistically significant impact on quality of life. In our study, PAL controlled nausea severity and sustained quality of life, but further strategies are needed to control delayed CINV associated with the auto-SCT process.

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.

Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Fosaprepitant, Ondansetron, Dexamethasone (FOND) Versus FOND Plus Olanzapine (FOND-O) for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Regimens: The FOND-O Trial

Evidence supports olanzapine for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) for highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, most studies focus on solid malignancies and single-day regimens. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to compare the addition of olanzapine to triplet therapy (fosaprepitant, ondansetron, dexamethasone [FOND-O]) versus triplet therapy alone (FOND) in preventing CINV in hematology patients receiving single-day and multiple-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) regimens (NCT02635984). The primary objective of this study was to compare complete response (CR; no emesis and minimal nausea, <25 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale) during the overall assessment period (chemotherapy days plus 5 days after). Secondary objectives were the number of emesis, number of rescue medications, percent achieving minimal nausea, and percent achieving complete protection (CP; no emesis, rescue antiemetic, or significant nausea), all of which are reported as acute (chemotherapy days), delayed (5 days after chemotherapy), and overall phases. Olanzapine 10 mg or matching placebo were given on each chemotherapy day and 3 days after. Adults with hematologic malignancy receiving HCT regimens of melphalan, BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan), busulfan (Bu)/cyclophosphamide (Cy), Bu/fludarabine (Flu), Bu/melphalan, FluCy, FluCy-total body irradiation (TBI), etoposide-TBI, and ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide) or 7+3 chemotherapy regimens were included. An estimated 98 patients were required using alpha = .05 and 80% power. No significant differences existed in baseline characteristics between FOND-O (n = 51) and FOND (n = 50) arms. Mean duration of olanzapine was 7.7 days (range, 4 to 11). Discontinuation for possible adverse events occurred in 3 placebo and 0 olanzapine patients. CR was significantly higher for FOND-O in overall (55% versus 26%, P = .003) and delayed (60.8% versus 30%, P = .001) but not acute (P = .13) phases. Significantly more patients receiving FOND-O achieved no more than minimal nausea in overall (P = .001) and delayed phases (P = .0002), as well as fewer overall mean emesis counts (P = .005). CP rates were not different in any assessment phase (P ≥ .05 each). Within the HCT subgroup (n = 64), the CR, CP, and no significant nausea rates were significantly better for FONDO-O in overall and delayed phases (all P < .05). Analysis within the HCT subgroup revealed significant improvement in outcomes in delayed and overall phases with FOND-O in the autologous but not allogeneic cohort. Addition of olanzapine to an NK-1-based triplet antiemetic regimen significantly improved clinically relevant outcomes in the HCT population.

Olanzapine-Based Triple Regimens Versus Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current antiemetic prophylaxis for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) included the olanzapine-based triplet and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs)-based triplet. However, which one shows better antiemetic effect remained unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 43 trials, involving 16,609 patients with HEC, which compared the following antiemetics at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: olanzapine, aprepitant, casopitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved no nausea, complete response (CR), and drug-related adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Olanzapine-based triple regimens showed significantly better no-nausea rate in overall phase and delayed phase than aprepitant-based triplet (odds ratios 3.18, 3.00, respectively), casopitant-based triplet (3.78, 4.12, respectively), fosaprepitant-based triplet (3.08, 4.10, respectively), rolapitant-based triplet (3.45, 3.20, respectively), and conventional duplex regimens (4.66, 4.38, respectively). CRs of olanzapine-based triplet were roughly equal to different NK-1RAs-based triplet but better than the conventional duplet. Moreover, no significant drug-related adverse events were observed in olanzapine-based triple regimens when compared with NK-1RAs-based triple regimens and duplex regimens. Additionally, the costs of olanzapine-based regimens were obviously much lower than the NK-1RA-based regimens.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-based triplet stood out in terms of nausea control and drug price but represented no significant difference of CRs in comparison with NK-1RAs-based triplet. Olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice for patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed phase nausea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

According to the results of this study, olanzapine-based triple antiemetic regimens were superior in both overall and delayed-phase nausea control when compared with various neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists-based triple regimens in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine-based triplet was outstanding in terms of nausea control and drug price. For cancer patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed-phase nausea, olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice.

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Purpose

To update the ASCO guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

Methods

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature for the period of November 2009 to June 2016.

Results

Forty-one publications were included in this systematic review. A phase III randomized controlled trial demonstrated that adding olanzapine to antiemetic prophylaxis reduces the likelihood of nausea among adult patients who are treated with high emetic risk antineoplastic agents. Randomized controlled trials also support an expanded role for neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in patients who are treated with chemotherapy.

Recommendation

Key updates include the addition of olanzapine to antiemetic regimens for adults who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents or who experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting; a recommendation to administer dexamethasone on day 1 only for adults who receive anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy; and the addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for adults who receive carboplatin area under the curve ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute or high-dose chemotherapy, and for pediatric patients who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents. For radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, adjustments were made to anatomic regions, risk levels, and antiemetic administration schedules. Rescue therapy alone is now recommended for low-emetic-risk radiation therapy. The Expert Panel reiterated the importance of using the most effective antiemetic regimens that are appropriate for antineoplastic agents or radiotherapy being administered. Such regimens should be used with initial treatment, rather than first assessing the patient’s emetic response with less-effective treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Olanzapine Reduces Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting Compared With Aprepitant in Myeloma Patients Receiving High-dose Melphalan Before Stem Cell Transplantation: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occurs in most patients who receive high-dose melphalan and significantly affects patients' quality of life during autologous stem cell transplantation. Faced with unsatisfactory results using an aprepitant-based regimen, an olanzapine-based regimen was initiated, with the hope of improving the incidence of acute and delayed CINV. A retrospective study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine- versus aprepitant-based regimens for CINV prevention in adult hematopoietic stem cell recipients who received high-dose melphalan.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared olanzapine (n = 43) to aprepitant (n = 54) and fosaprepitant (n = 20). Olanzapine was given orally at 5 mg twice daily for 5 days, aprepitant was given at 125 mg on day -1 and 80 mg on days 0 and 1, and fosaprepitant was given at 150 mg on day -1. The dose of 2 concomitant drugs (dexamethasone and 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist) was similar in the 2 groups. Nausea prevention was the primary endpoint. A complete response using a composite index of no emesis and no use of rescue medications was the secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

The results showed that olanzapine significantly reduced the number of patients who experienced acute (P < .0001) or delayed (P < .004) nausea and significantly reduced the use of rescue medications for acute-onset (P < .0046) and delayed-onset (P < .0001) CINV compared with aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

Compared with fosaprepitant, olanzapine reduced the number of patients with acute (P < .0318) and delayed (P < .1519) nausea and reduced the need for rescue medications for acute-onset (P < .0643) and delayed-onset (P < .0024) CINV.

Antiemetic Effectiveness and Cost-Saving of Aprepitant plus Granisetron Is Superior to Palonosetron in Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients Who Received Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Purpose The therapeutic benefit of a three-drug combination of antiemetics has not been established in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). The aim of this study was to compare the antiemetic effectiveness and cost-saving of palonosetron plus dexamethasone (control group) with aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone (study group) in cancer patients who received MEC.

Methods We switched the standard antiemetic treatment from the control group to the study group in gastrointestinal cancer patients who received MEC after October 2015. The antiemetics in both groups were modified using salvage antiemetic therapy at the clinicians' discretion, according to the severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records from patients, before and after switching groups, from between April 2014 and March 2016.

Results We evaluated 443 treatment courses in 83 patients. The proportion of courses that included salvage antiemetic therapy in the control group and the study group was 34.8 % (116/333) and 8.2 % (9/110), respectively, and was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The mean integrated costs of antiemetics per course in the control group and the study group were 193 ± 55 USD and 143 ± 38 USD, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the study group was significantly associated with a reduced risk of requiring salvage antiemetic therapy (p = 0.038).

Conclusions These results suggest that the antiemetic effectiveness and cost-saving of a three-drug combination of aprepitant, generic granisetron, and dexamethasone was superior to a two-drug combination of palonosetron plus dexamethasone in gastrointestinal cancer patients who received MEC.

High-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation of patients with multiple myeloma in an outpatient setting

Background

High-dose (HD) chemotherapy with melphalan and autologous blood stem cell transplantation (ABSCT) for treatment of symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) on an outpatient basis has been well established in the USA and Canada, whereas in Germany and Western Europe an inpatient setting is the current standard. We report on a German single-centre program to offer the procedure on an outpatient basis to selected patients.

Methods

Major requirements included: patients had to have family and/or other caregivers, had to be able to reach the hospital within 45 min and have an ECOG performance score of 0–1. Patients with severe co-morbidities were not included.

Results

From September 2012 until April 2016, 21 patients with MM stage IIIA were enrolled. All engrafted within the expected time range (median 14 days), and no severe adverse events occurred. 14 patients (67%) had an episode of neutropenic fever and blood cultures were positive in 4 patients (19%). Although rather liberal criteria for hospital admission were applied, 14 patients (67%) were treated entirely on an outpatient basis.

Conclusions

HD chemotherapy and ABSCT on an outpatient basis is safe and feasible if it is conducted in an elaborate surveillance program. The feedback from patients was very positive, thus encouraging further expansion of the program.

Efficacy and Safety of Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

Can addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs) be considered as an ideal strategy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)? Researchers differ on this question.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of NK1-RAs in preventing CINV. The primary end point was complete response (CR) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases after chemotherapy. Subgroup analyses evaluated the types of NK1-RAs, routines of administration, types of malignancies, regimens used in combination with NK1-RAs, and age of patients included in the studies. The incidences of different types of adverse events were also extracted to estimate the safety of NK1-RAs.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs involving 13,923 patients were identified. The CR rate of patients receiving NK-RAs was significantly higher than patients in the control groups during overall phase (70.8% vs 56.0%, <0.001), acute phase (85.1% vs 79.6%, <0.001), and delayed phase (71.4% vs 58.2%, <0.001). There were three studies including patients of children or adolescents, the CR rate was also significantly higher in the treatment group (overall phase: OR=2.807, <0.001; acute phase: OR=2.863, P =0.012; delayed phase: OR=2.417, <0.001). For all the other outcomes, patients in the NK1-RAs groups showed improvements compared to the control groups (incidence of nausea: 45.2% vs 45.9%, <0.001; occurrence of vomiting: 22.6% vs 38.9%, <0.001; usage of rescue drugs: 23.5% vs 34.1%, <0.001). The pooled side effects from NK1-RAs did not significantly differ from previous reports and the toxicity rates in patients less than eighteen years old also did not diff between the two groups (P=0.497). However, we found that constipation and insomnia were more common in the patients of control groups, whereas diarrhea and hiccups were more frequently detected in patients receiving NK1-RAs.

CONCLUSIONS

NK1-RAs improved the CR rate of CINV. They are effective for both adults and children. The use of NK1-RAs might be associated with the appearance of diarrhea and hiccups, while decreasing the possibility of constipation and insomnia.

Storage Duration of Autologous Stem Cell Preparations Has No Impact on Hematopoietic Recovery after Transplantation

Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) are widely used for autologous blood stem cell transplantation (ABSCT). These cells must be stored for months or even years, usually at temperatures ≤-140°C, until their use. Although several in vitro studies on CD34⁺ viability and clonogenic assays of PBSCs after long-term storage have been reported, only a few publications have investigated the influence of long-term storage on in vivo hematopoietic reconstitution. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed hematopoietic recovery after storage of PBSCs via controlled-rate freezing (CRF) and cryostorage in 10% DMSO at ≤-140°C in 105 patients with multiple myeloma who received high-dose melphalan before ABSCT. Three groups of PBSC transplantation (n = 247) were delineated based on the storage period: short-term (≤12 months, n = 143), medium-term (>12 and ≤60 months, n = 75), and long-term storage (>60 months, n = 29). A neutrophil increase of ≥.5 × 10⁹/L in medium-term or long-term PBSC cryopreservation groups was observed at day 14 after ABSCT; this increase was comparable to patients who received briefly stored PBSCs (day 15). No negative effect of PBSC storage duration was observed on leucocyte or neutrophil reconstitution. Platelet reconstitutions of ≥20  × 10⁹/L and 50 × 10⁹/L were observed after median times of 10 to 11 and 13 to 14 days after ABSCT, respectively. No influence of PBSC storage duration on platelet recovery of ≥20  × 10⁹/L and ≥50 × 10⁹/L was observed in the 3 storage groups (P = .07, P = .32). The number of previous ABSCTs also had no significant impact upon hematopoietic reconstitution. In conclusion, these results indicate that long-term cryopreservation of PBSC products at vapor nitrogen temperature after CRF does not have a negative effect on hematopoietic recovery even after prolonged storage.

Efficacy of triple antiemetic therapy (palonosetron, dexamethasone, aprepitant) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Recommended treatments for prevention of CINV vary among published guidelines, and optimal care for CINV caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy has not been established. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant for carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer scheduled for a first course of a carboplatin-containing regimen formed the study cohort. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron (0.75 mg, i.v.) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg, i.v.) on day 1, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not experience vomiting and did not require rescue medication [complete response (CR)] in the acute phase (0-24 h), late phase (24-168 h) and overall. Secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced no vomiting episodes and no more than mild nausea without the need for rescue medication [complete control (CC)].

RESULTS

Prevalence of a CR during the acute phase, delayed phase, and overall was 100, 91.9 and 91.9%, whereas that of CC was 100, 84.4 and 84.4%, respectively. The most common adverse event was mild constipation; severe adverse events related to antiemetic treatment were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant shows excellent effects in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving a carboplatin-containing regimen.

Palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting after high-dose melphalan in autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma: A phase II study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant side effect in multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving high-dose melphalan treatment followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a triple antiemetic combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and low-dose dexamethasone in 24 MM patients who received melphalan conditioning (100 mg/m² on days 1-2) before ASCT (on day 4). Intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg on day 1), oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1; 80 mg on days 2-4), and intravenous dexamethasone (6.6 mg on days 1-4) were administered for prevention of CINV. Complete response (no emesis and no rescue antiemetic) and complete control (no emesis, no rescue antiemetic, and no more than mild nausea) rates were 75 and 68% during the overall phase (0-120 h), while they were 88 and 86% in the acute phase (0-48 h), 75 and 68% in the delayed phase (48-120 h), and 67 and 59% in the extended phase (120-168 h), respectively. There were no serious adverse events related to the antiemetic therapy. In conclusion, the three-antiemetic regimen consisting of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was safe and effective for controlling CINV due to high-dose melphalan treatment, especially during the delayed phase.

Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) are widely used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Whether the efficacy and toxicity of antiemesis are different among various NK-1RA-based triple regimens is unknown.

Methods

Data of complete responses (CRs) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted from electronic databases. Efficacy and toxicity were integrated by pairwise and network meta-analyses.

Results

Thirty-six trials involving 18 889 patients using triple regimens (NK-1RA+serotonin receptor antagonists [5HT3RA] + dexamethasone) or duplex regimen (5HT3RA+dexamethasone) to control CINV were included in the analysis. Different NK-1RA-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CRs. In patients with HEC, almost all triple regimens showed statistically significantly higher CRs than duplex regimen (odds ratio [OR]_{duplex/triple} = 0.47-0.66). However, in patients with MEC, only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better effect than duplex regimen statistically significantly in CRs (OR_{duplex/triple} = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34 to 0.68). No statistically significant difference of TRAEs was found among different triple regimens. Palonosetron-based triple regimens were equivalent to first-generation 5HT3RAs-based triple regimens for CRs. Moreover, different doses of dexamethasone plus NK-1RA and 5HT3RA showed no statistically significant difference in CRs.

Conclusions

Different NK-1RAs-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CINV control. Various triple regimens had superior antiemetic effect than duplex regimen in patients with HEC. Only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better CINV control compared with duplex regimen in patients receiving MEC. Palonosetron and first-generation 5HT3RAs might share equivalent CINV control in the combination of NK-1RAs and dexamethasone. Lower doses of dexamethasone might be applied when used with NK-1RAs and 5HT3RAs.

State of the Art Antiemetic Therapy for Cancer Patients

Nausea and vomiting are common in cancer patients. The most common cause of nausea and vomiting is the administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Apart from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), biological agents may also cause these symptoms. In this review, discussion will be focused on management of nausea and vomiting due to antineoplastic therapies. The cornerstone of effective management of nausea and vomiting secondary to these antineoplastic drugs is the prevention with the use of appropriate guideline-directed combination antiemetic regimen. Type 3 serotonin receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs), and dexamethasone are the backbone antiemetic drugs. In recent years, newer drugs and preparations have been introduced for clinical use and include second-generation 5HT3RA, palonosetron; granisetron transdermal patch; the recently introduced NK1RA rolapitant; and the novel oral combined drug NEPA (netupitant plus palonosetron); and last but not least, the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine.

A randomized trial of olanzapine versus palonosetron versus infused ondansetron for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine, palonosetron and ondansetron infusion (standard of care) for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

METHOD

It was a randomized open-label prospective study. Sixty-two patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 32-mg infusion over 24 h, or olanzapine wafer 10 mg once daily in addition to ondansetron 8 mg IV three times a day or a single dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg IV instead of ondansetron. All groups were allowed rescue antiemetics. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of no emesis, no use of rescue medication, and nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. The secondary endpoint was nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. Both endpoints were measured at 24 and 48 h after initiation of the study treatment. Statistical analysis was conducted using a double-sided Fisher's exact test.

RESULT

The primary endpoint was achieved in 6, 45, and 18 %, and 6, 64, and 18 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetron patient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. The secondary outcome was observed in 17, 60, and 62 %, and 35, 71, and 43 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetron patient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. Serious adverse drug reactions were not reported in any arms. Time to engraftment was not significantly different between the arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine was an effective treatment of breakthrough CINV. A single dose of palonosetron significantly reduced nausea up to 24 h.

Glucocorticoid receptor-mediated delivery of nano gold-withaferin conjugates for reversal of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and tumor regression

AIM

To explore the potential of glucocorticoid receptor-targeted nano-gold formulation as antitumor drug sensitizing agent.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Simultaneous conjugation of gold nanoparticle with thiol-modified dexamethasone, a synthetic glucocorticoid and anticancer drug withaferin A afforded stable gold nanoparticle-modifed dexamethasone-withaferin A nanoconjugate.

RESULTS

This metallic nanoparticle formulation showed glucocorticoid receptor-dependent cancer cell selective cytotoxicity, inhibited growth of aggressive mouse melanoma tumor, reduced mice mortality, while reversing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in tumor cells. Same treatment also leads to near-complete downregulation of ABCG2 drug transporter in tumor-associated cells thus attributing it to its drug sensitizing ability.

CONCLUSION

The presently synthesized nanoconjugate holds a great promise to sensitize cancer cells to chemotherapeutics and induce epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition reversal in tumor cells preventing metastasis.

Neurokinin-1 inhibitors in the prevention of nausea and vomiting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

A network meta-analysis of the comparative effectiveness of neurokinin 1 (NK-1) inhibitors in the prophylaxis of highly emetogenic chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting has been conducted. Eligible studies included randomized trials evaluating aprepitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant (NEPA), casopitant and rolapitant containing regimens in the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Primary outcomes of interest include complete response (CR) and rate of no significant nausea. After preclusion of ineligible studies, 19 studies were included in the final analysis. The majority of the regimens containing NK-1 inhibitors (including NEPA, aprepitant/palonosetron (palono)/dexamethasone (dexa), casopitant/granisetron (grani) or ondansetron (ondan)/dexa, aprepitant/ondan/dexa) are better than regimens not containing them (palono/dexa, ondan/dexa, grani/dexa) in terms of achieving a CR in the overall phase. Moreover, casopitant/grani or ondan/dexa and aprepitant/grani or ondan/dexa are better than rolapitant/ondan or grani/dexa in terms of CR achievement [odds ratio (OR) 1.62, 95% credible interval (CrI) 1.14-2.23, and OR 1.28, 95% CrI 1.01-1.59, respectively]. Taking into consideration the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, regimens containing neurokinin inhibitors are associated with higher CR rates than regimens not containing them. Moreover, casopitant and aprepitant regimens seem to be more effective than rolapitant regimens.

Minimal renal toxicity after Rituximab DHAP with a modified cisplatin application scheme in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Rituximab (R) in combination with DHAP is a widely accepted salvage regimen for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). A common adverse effect of this protocol is renal toxicity which may result in treatment discontinuation. Assuming that a lower single dose of cisplatin over several days would reduce renal toxicity, our institution has chosen to administer cisplatin in a dosage of 25 mg/m(2) per day as a 3-h infusion over 4 consecutive days.

METHODS

In this study, we analyzed the renal function of 122 patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL treated with R-DHAP at our institution. Overall, 256 R-DHAP cycles were administered. 31 (25%), 61 (50%), 14 (12%) and 16 (13%) patients received one, two, three or four R-DHAP courses, respectively.

RESULTS

A glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decrease was observed after each R-DHAP cycle. However, in none of the subgroups the median GFR was lower than 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). In most patients, only renal impairment stage I and II was observed. Renal impairment stage III was seen in 10% and stage IV only in 1% of patients.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that a modified R-DHAP regimen with administration of cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) over 4 consecutive cycles leads only to minimal renal toxicity.