Antiemetic Use in Oncology: Updated Guideline Recommendations from ASCO

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines in solid cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Korea

BACKGROUND

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is known to induce nausea and vomiting (CINV) in approximately 90% of cancer patients undergoing this regimen unless proper prophylactic antiemetics are administered. This study aimed to analyze the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen during the first cycle of chemotherapy and assess the compliance rate with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.

METHODS

This retrospective study utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2020 provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The claims data encompassed 10 to 13% of inpatients admitted at least once each year. Patients with solid cancers treated with two HEC regimens, namely anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) and cisplatin-based regimens, were selected as the study population. We evaluated the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone and compliance with the NCCN guidelines. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to estimate the influence of variables on guideline adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 3119 patients were included in the analysis. The overall compliance rate with the NCCN guidelines for prophylactic antiemetics was 74.3%, with higher rates observed in the AC group (87.9%) and lower rates in the cisplatin group (60.4%). The AC group had a 6.37 times higher likelihood of receiving guideline-adherent antiemetics than the cisplatin group. Further analysis revealed that, compared to 2016, the probability of complying with the guidelines in 2019 and 2020 was 0.72 times and 0.76 times lower, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that a considerable proportion of HEC-treated patients received guideline-adherent antiemetic therapies. However, given the variations in adherence rates between different chemotherapy regimens (AC vs. cisplatin), efforts to improve adherence and optimize antiemetic treatment remain essential for providing the best possible care for patients experiencing CINV.

Phase I/II study of streptozocin monotherapy in Japanese patients with unresectable or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND

This phase I/II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of streptozocin (STZ) in Japanese patients with unresectable or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients received up to 4 cycles of intravenous STZ at either 500 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 6 weeks (daily regimen) or at 1000-1500 mg/m2 once weekly for 6 weeks (weekly regimen). Tumor response was evaluated using the modified RECIST criteria ver. 1.1, and adverse events were assessed by grade according to the National Cancer Institute CTCAE (ver. 4.0).

RESULTS

Fourteen (63.6%) patients completed the study protocol. No patients had complete response; partial response in 2 (9.1%), stable disease in 17 (77.3%), non-complete response/non-progressive disease in 2 (9.1%) and only 1 (4.5%) had non-evaluable disease. Excluding the latter, the response rate in the daily and weekly regimens was 6.7% (1/15) and 16.7% (1/6), respectively, with an overall response rate of 9.5% (2/21). However, the best overall response in each patient showed that the disease control rate was 100%.Adverse events occurred in all 22 patients, including 17 grade 3 adverse events in 11 patients; however, no grade 4 or 5 adverse events were reported. Prophylactic hydration and antiemetic treatment reduced the severity and incidence of nephrotoxicity, nausea and vomiting. Plasma STZ concentrations decreased rapidly after termination of infusion, with a half-life of 32-40 min. Neither repeated administration nor dose increases affected pharmacokinetic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

STZ may be a useful option for Japanese patients with unresectable or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

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.

Using Serious Games to Increase Prevention and Self-Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Older Adults With Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To examine the frequency and types of preventive and self-management behaviors reported by participants, as well as report acceptability and usability data for the electronic Symptom Self-Management Training-Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) serious game.

SAMPLE & SETTING

80 adults who were aged 60 years or older and newly diagnosed with cancer were recruited from a community cancer center.

METHODS & VARIABLES

Participants were randomized to an intervention or control group. A symptom management checklist was used to record preventive and self-management behaviors used after each chemotherapy treatment at home. Acceptability and usability were assessed using a brief survey.

RESULTS

The intervention group reported using more preventive behaviors, and the control group reported using more self-management behaviors. Antiemetics were the most common strategy used, followed by dietary strategies. Participants rated all aspects of the serious game highly for usability and acceptability.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Oncology providers can help older adults plan for self-managing treatment-related side effects at home. Recording self-management behaviors may reinforce the importance of active prevention and management of CINV.

Effectiveness of Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Taxanes are the only cytotoxic drugs that have demonstrated a survival benefit for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), but there is some evidence that platinum compounds may also benefit such patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search on electronic databases. We sought prospective clinical studies testing platinum compounds for CRPC. Platinum compounds could be delivered alone or in combination with other drugs. Both randomized and nonrandomized studies were included for qualitative synthesis, only randomized studies were included for meta-analyses. Clinical overall response rate (cORR), prostate-specific antigen overall response rate (sORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity were the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

We identified 53 studies delivering platinum agents for patients with CRPC. cORR varied from 0 to 82%, while sORR varied from 2% to 100%. Response rates were higher in patients who received combination treatments rather than platinum compounds alone. Pooled data from randomized trials demonstrated a statistically significant increase in both cORR (odds ratio = 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.89-14.92) and sORR (odds ratio = 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-3.22) when adding platinum compounds to chemotherapy. PFS varied from 2.1 to 12 months and OS 4.2 to 28 months with platinum-containing chemotherapy. Nausea and myelosuppression were the most common adverse effects. Toxicity was manageable in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Platinum compounds are a safe and active treatment for CRPC. Response rates are higher when cytotoxic chemotherapy containing platinum agents are compared to nonplatinum chemotherapy. Data on OS and PFS are inconclusive. More research is needed to evaluate whether platinum-based chemotherapy results in a survival benefit for patients with CRPC, as well as to establish predictive biomarkers.

Efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant in the prevention of nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese people: A randomized, double-blind, phase III study

The prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting was one of the most challenging supportive care issues in oncology, especially to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). A total of 645 patients were randomized into fosaprepitant group (fosaprepitant/placebo 150 mg d1 in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone) or aprepitant group (aprepitant/placebo 125 mg d1; 80 mg d2‐d3 plus granisetron and dexamethasone).The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who had a complete response (CR) over the entire treatment course (0–120 hr, overall phase [OP]). It was assessed by using a non‐inferiority model, with a non‐inferiority margin of 10%. The difference of the CR rate was compared between two groups with chi‐square analysis. Six hundred and twenty‐six patients were included in the per protocol analysis. The percentage of patients with a CR in the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that in the aprepitant group (90.85% versus 94.17%, p = .1302) during OP. Whether the cisplatin‐based chemotherapy or not, the CR rate of the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that of the aprepitant group. Both regimens were well tolerated. The most common adverse event was constipation. Fosaprepitant provided effective and well‐tolerated control of nausea and vomiting associated with HEC in Chinese patients.

Additive effect of rikkunshito, an herbal medicine, on chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting, and anorexia in uterine cervical or corpus cancer patients treated with cisplatin and paclitaxel: results of a randomized phase II study (JORTC KMP-02)

OBJECTIVE

Rikkunshito, an herbal medicine, is widely prescribed in Japan for the treatment of anorexia and functional dyspepsia, and has been reported to recover reductions in food intake caused by cisplatin. We investigated whether rikkunshito could improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and anorexia in patients treated with cisplatin.

METHODS

Patients with uterine cervical or corpus cancer who were to receive cisplatin (50 mg/m² day 1) and paclitaxel (135 mg/m² day 0) as first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned to the rikkunshito group receiving oral administration on days 0-13 with standard antiemetics, or the control group receiving antiemetics only. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete control (CC: no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea) in the overall phase (0-120 hours). Two-tailed p<0.20 was considered significant in the planned analysis.

RESULTS

The CC rate in the overall phase was significantly higher in the rikkunshito group than in the control group (57.9% vs. 35.3%, p=0.175), as were the secondary endpoints: the CC rate in the delayed phase (24-120 hours), and the complete response (CR) rates (no emesis and no rescue medication) in the overall and delayed phases (63.2% vs. 35.3%, p=0.095; 84.2% vs. 52.9%, p=0.042; 84.2% vs. 52.9%, p=0.042, respectively), and time to treatment failure (p=0.059). Appetite assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) appeared to be superior in the rikkunshito group from day 2 through day 6.

CONCLUSION

Rikkunshito provided additive effect for the prevention of CINV and anorexia.

Concise review of the management of iatrogenic emesis using cannabinoids: emphasis on nabilone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a prevalent, distressing, and burdensome side effect of cancer chemotherapy. It is estimated to affect the majority of patients receiving certain anti-cancer drug regimens and can be treatment-limiting, even for life-saving medications. Despite seemingly numerous options, such as antimuscarinic anticholinergics, antihistamines, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, preventative therapies are often inadequately effective, particularly for "delayed CINV"-leaving an important unmet clinical need. Cannabinoid receptor agonists, by virtue of their unique mechanism of action and efficacy and safety data reported in clinical trials, appear to offer a useful additional option. The mechanistic value of cannabinoids has been well known for many years, but these agents may have been underutilized in the past because of the notoriety and legal status of marijuana. While botanical marijuana contains nearly 500 components, including the psychoactive tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), nabilone is an established, single-entity synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist that has become the focus of renewed interest. We review the basic pharmacology and clinical trial data of nabilone for use in prophylaxis and treatment of CINV.

The Effects of Acupressure on Meridian Energy as well as Nausea and Vomiting in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy

Nausea and vomiting are the most common side effects of antineoplastic chemotherapy. However, only a small number of studies have been conducted in Taiwan to determine the efficacy of acupressure in treating these side effects in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. In this quasi-experimental study, we aimed to explore the effects of acupressure on meridian energy as well as nausea and vomiting in 70 lung cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Patients were assigned to the experimental or control group based on order of hospital admission. The experimental group received acupressure on “Neiguan (PC6)” and “Gongsun (SP4)” points, and the control group received sham acupoint patches on “Houxi (SI3)” point. The results showed that the mean meridian energy in the experimental group after acupressure was significantly higher than in the control group ( F = 28.71, p < .001). The experimental group had significantly less nausea ( p < .001) and vomiting ( p = .006) during the delayed phase than the control group. In conclusion, acupressure significantly increased the mean meridian energy and effectively decreased the severity of nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. We recommend that clinical nurses provide acupressure as an intervention to relieve nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy.

A Phase II single-arm trial of palonosetron for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in malignant glioma patients receiving multidose irinotecan in combination with bevacizumab

Purpose

Given that the prognosis of recurrent malignant glioma (MG) remains poor, improving quality of life (QoL) through symptom management is important. Meta-analyses establishing antiemetic guidelines have demonstrated the superiority of palonosetron (PAL) over older 5-hydroxytryptamine 3-receptor antagonists in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention, but excluded patients with gliomas. Irinotecan plus bevacizumab is a treatment frequently used in MG, but is associated with low (55%) CINV complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue antiemetic) with commonly prescribed ondansetron. A single-arm Phase II trial was conducted in MG patients to determine the efficacy of intravenous PAL (0.25 mg) and dexamethasone (DEX; 10 mg) received in conjunction with biweekly irinotecan–bevacizumab treatment. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects achieving acute CINV CR (no emesis or antiemetic ≤24 hours postchemotherapy). Secondary end points included delayed CINV CR (days 2–5), overall CINV CR (days 1–5), and QoL, fatigue, and toxicity.

Materials and methods

A two-stage design of 160 patients was planned to differentiate between CINV CR of 55% and 65% after each dose of PAL–DEX. Validated surveys assessed fatigue and QoL.

Results

A total of 63 patients were enrolled, after which enrollment was terminated due to slow accrual; 52 patients were evaluable for the primary outcome of acute CINV CR. Following PAL–DEX dose administrations 1–3, acute CINV CR rates were 62%, 68%, and 70%; delayed CINV CR rates were 62%, 66%, and 70%, and overall CINV CR rates were 47%, 57%, and 62%, respectively. Compared to baseline, there was a clinically meaningful increase in fatigue during acute and overall phases, but not in the delayed phase. There were no grade ≥3 PAL–DEX treatment-related toxicities.

Conclusion

Data suggest that PAL–DEX is effective in preventing CINV in MG patients, which ultimately maintains the QoL of patients with glioma.

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.

Patterns of antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in China

BACKGROUND

Few studies have attempted to evaluate the use of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) at a national level in China or to assess how treatment regimens adhere to current guidelines.

METHODS

We searched the China Health Insurance Research Association (CHIRA) Database to identify patients with cancer who were ≥18 years old and received either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC and HEC, respectively) between 2008 and 2012. Patients' characteristics as well as usage of specific antiemetic regimens were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 14,548 patients included in the study, 6,477 received HEC while 8,071 were treated with MEC. Approximately 89.9% used antiemetics prophylactically to prevent acute CINV and 71.5% for delayed CINV while 9.0% were prescribed antiemetics as rescue therapy. A significantly lower proportion of patients treated with HEC received prophylactic antiemetic therapy for delayed CINV as compared to those treated with MEC (59.4% vs. 81.3%; P<0.001). The HEC group had a slightly lower proportion of patients using a mixed regimen containing a 5-HT3 antagonist to prevent both acute and delayed CINV than the MEC group (P≤0.012); however, a higher proportion received a mixed regimen containing corticosteroids (P≤0.007). Although more than half of the patients in the HEC group took three antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed CINV, these rates were significantly lower than those of the MEC group (both P<0.001). Finally, analysis of the regimens used revealed that there is over-utilization of drugs within the same class of antiemetic.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that more attention is needed for treatment of delayed CINV, in terms of both overall use and the components of a typical treatment regimen.

Neuromotor tolerability and behavioural characterisation of cannabidiolic acid, a phytocannabinoid with therapeutic potential for anticipatory nausea

RATIONALE

Anticipatory nausea (AN) is a poorly controlled side effect experienced by chemotherapy patients. Currently, pharmacotherapy is restricted to benzodiazepine anxiolytics, which have limited efficacy, have significant sedative effects and induce dependency. The non-psychoactive phytocannabinoid, cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), has shown considerable efficacy in pre-clinical AN models, however determination of its neuromotor tolerability profile is crucial to justify clinical investigation. Provisional evidence for appetite-stimulating properties also requires detailed investigation.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the tolerability of CBDA in locomotor activity, motor coordination and muscular strength tests, and additionally for ability to modulate feeding behaviours.

METHODS

Male Lister Hooded rats administered CBDA (0.05-5 mg/kg; p.o.) were assessed in habituated open field (for locomotor activity), static beam and grip strength tests. A further study investigated whether these CBDA doses modulated normal feeding behaviour. Finally, evidence of anxiolytic-like effects in the habituated open field prompted testing of 5 mg/kg CBDA for anxiolytic-like activity in unhabituated open field, light/dark box and novelty-suppressed feeding (NSF) tests.

RESULTS

CBDA had no adverse effects upon performance in any neuromotor tolerability test, however anxiolytic-like behaviour was observed in the habituated open field. Normal feeding behaviours were unaffected by any dose. CBDA (5 mg/kg) abolished the increased feeding latency in the NSF test induced by the 5-HT1AR antagonist, WAY-100,635, indicative of anxiolytic-like effects, but had no effect on anxiety-like behaviour in the novel open field or light/dark box.

CONCLUSIONS

CBDA is very well tolerated and devoid of the sedative side effect profile of benzodiazepines, justifying its clinical investigation as a novel AN treatment.

Drug-drug interaction profile of components of a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron: Review of clinical data

Neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs) are commonly coadministered with serotonin (5-HT₃) RAs (e.g. palonosetron (PALO)) to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), an oral fixed combination of netupitant (NETU)—a new NK₁ RA—and PALO, is currently under development. In vitro data suggest that NETU inhibits CYP3A4 and is a substrate for and weak inhibitor of P-glycoprotein (P-gp). This review evaluates potential drug–drug interactions between NETU or NEPA and CYP3A4 substrates/inducers/inhibitors or P-gp substrates in healthy subjects. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were evaluated for each drug when NETU was coadministered with PALO (single doses) and when single doses of NETU or NEPA were coadministered with CYP3A4 substrates (erythromycin (ERY), midazolam (MID), dexamethasone (DEX), or oral contraceptives), inhibitors (ketoconazole (KETO)), or inducers (rifampicin (RIF)), or a P-gp substrate (digoxin (DIG)). Results showed no relevant PK interactions between NETU and PALO. Coadministration of NETU increased MID and ERY exposure and significantly increased DEX exposure in a dose-dependent manner; NETU exposure was unaffected. NEPA coadministration had no clinically significant effect on oral contraception, although levonorgestrel exposure increased. NETU exposure increased after coadministration of NEPA with KETO and decreased after coadministration with RIF; PALO exposure was unaffected. NETU coadministration did not influence DIG exposure. In conclusion, there were no clinically relevant interactions between NETU and PALO, or NEPA and oral contraceptives (based on levonorgestrel and ethinylestradiol exposure). Coadministration of NETU or NEPA with CYP3A4 inducers/inhibitors/substrates should be done with caution. Dose reduction is recommended for DEX. Dose adjustments are not needed for NETU coadministration with P-gp substrates.

Herbal medicines for the treatment of cancer chemotherapy-induced side effects

Accumulating evidence suggests that Japanese herbal medicines, called Kampo, have beneficial effects on cancer chemotherapy-induced side effects. Rikkunshito ameliorates cisplatin-induced anorexia through an antagonistic effect on the 5-HT receptors and by increasing the serum ghrelin levels. Hangeshashinto improves irinotecan-induced diarrhea and chemotherapy-induced mucositis by inhibiting the activity of β-glucuronidase as well as the synthesis of prostaglandin E2. Goshajinkigan prevents oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity, possibly through suppressing functional alterations of the transient receptor potential channels. In this review, we will summarize the currently available literature regarding the clinical efficacy and potential mechanisms of Kampo medicines in the treatment of cancer chemotherapy-induced side effects.