Randomized, multicenter comparison of oral granisetron and oral ondansetron for emetogenic chemotherapy

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.

Choice of study endpoint significantly impacts the results of breast cancer trials evaluating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Multiple endpoints can be used to evaluate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). These endpoints reflect the various combinations of vomiting, nausea and rescue antiemetic use in the acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) periods after chemotherapy. As the choice of outcome measure could potentially change the interpretation of clinical trial results, we evaluated CINV rates using different endpoints on a single dataset from a prospective cohort. Data from 177 breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy was used to calculate CINV control rates using the 15 most commonly reported CINV endpoints. As nausea remains such a significant symptom, we explored the frequency at which pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical company-funded studies included measures of nausea in their primary study endpoint. CINV control rates ranged from 12.5 %, 95 % (CI 7.6-17.4 %) for total control (no vomiting, no nausea and no rescue medication) in the overall period to 77.4 %, 95 % (CI 71.2-83.6 %) for no vomiting in the overall period. Similar differences were found in the acute and delayed periods. Non-pharmaceutical company-funded trials were more likely to include a measure of nausea in the primary study outcome (9/18, 50 %) than pharmaceutical-funded trials (1/12, 8.3 %). The choice of trial endpoint has an important impact on reported CINV control rates and could significantly impact on interpretation of the results. Primary endpoints of studies, including those mandated by regulatory bodies, should account for nausea to reflect patient experience. Reporting of endpoints should be more comprehensive to allow for cross-trial comparisons.

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

GOALS OF WORK

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Signals for nausea and emesis: Implications for models of upper gastrointestinal diseases

Nausea and vomiting are amongst the most common symptoms encountered in medicine as either symptoms of diseases or side effects of treatments. In a more biological setting they are also important components of an organism's defences against ingested toxins. Identification of treatments for nausea and vomiting and reduction of emetic liability of new therapies has largely relied on the use of animal models, and although such models have proven invaluable in identification of the anti-emetic effects of both 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) and neurokinin(1) receptor antagonists selection of appropriate models is still a matter of debate. The present paper focuses on a number of controversial issues and gaps in our knowledge in the study of the physiology of nausea and vomiting including: The choice of species for the study of emesis and the underlying behavioural (e.g. neophobia), anatomical (e.g. elongated, narrow abdominal oesophagus with reduced ability to shorten) and physiological (e.g. brainstem circuitry) mechanisms that explain the lack of a vomiting reflex in certain species (e.g. rats); The choice of response to measure (emesis[retching and vomiting], conditioned flavour avoidance or aversion, ingestion of clay[pica], plasma hormone levels[e.g. vasopressin], gastric dysrhythmias) and the relationship of these responses to those observed in humans and especially to the sensation of nausea; The stimulus coding of nausea and emesis by abdominal visceral afferents and especially the vagus-how do the afferents encode information for normal postprandial sensations, nausea and finally vomiting?; Understanding the central processing of signals for nausea and vomiting is particularly problematic in the light of observations that vomiting is more readily amenable to pharmacological treatment than is nausea, despite the assumption that nausea represents "low" intensity activation of pathways that can evoke vomiting when stimulated more intensely.

Employment of substandard antiemetic prophylaxis in recent trials of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of substandard antiemetic therapy among recently published trials conducted in patients with cancer who received emetogenic chemotherapy.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was conducted (2000-July 2004) using the key words 5-HT(3) antagonists, ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron, tropisetron, ramosetron, palonosetron, NK-1 antagonists, and aprepitant.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All antiemetic trials in patients receiving chemotherapy that were published from January 2000 to July 2004 were evaluated. Standard prophylactic antiemetic therapy was derived from contemporary antiemetic guidelines published by oncology professional organizations and expert panels. The number of patients and studies in which patients received standard and substandard antiemetic therapy was determined for both the acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Separate determinations were made for severely and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The annual percentage of studies in which substandard antiemetic prophylaxis was given and the percentage of patients who received substandard prophylaxis also were determined.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Fifty-six studies were reviewed, which included a total of 10 274 patients and 125 study arms. The percentage of patients who received substandard antiemetic prophylaxis was 30% (n = 3063) for acute CINV and 33% (n = 3413) for delayed CINV. The average annual percentage of studies that employed substandard prophylaxis during this time period was 54%.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent antiemetic trials for CINV, the employment of substandard antiemetic therapy is common. These results raise important ethical questions regarding contemporary antiemetic trial design.

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

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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