Ramosetron Versus Ondansetron in Combination With Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase III Trial, KCSG PC10-21

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.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents

PURPOSE

This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.

CONCLUSION

There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

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.

Efficacy of Serotonin Type 3 Receptor Antagonist Ramosetron on Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS-D)-Like Symptoms in Patients with Quiescent Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Patients with quiescent inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently suffer diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D)-like symptoms, such as abdominal pain or stool irregularities. Here, we assessed the effect of ramosetron, a serotonin type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist, on IBS-D-like symptoms in patients with quiescent IBD. Seventy patients with quiescent IBD, who met the Rome III diagnostic criteria for IBS-D, were randomly assigned to receive either ramosetron (5 μg; n = 35) or a placebo (n = 35) orally once daily for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the responder rate for global assessment of relief from overall IBS-D-like symptoms. The responder rates for relief of abdominal pain/discomfort and improvement of bowel habits were also evaluated. The responder rate for relief from overall IBS-D-like symptoms at the final evaluation point was significantly higher in the ramosetron group (35.5%) than in the placebo group (11.4%) (p = 0.037). The responder rate for improvement of bowel habits was significantly higher in the ramosetron group (38.7%) than in the placebo group (14.3%) (p = 0.028). The reduction of stool frequency was significantly greater in the ramosetron group than in the placebo group (p = 0.044). Ramosetron is effective for relief of overall IBS-D-like symptoms in patients with quiescent IBD.

Effect of Acupuncture on Delayed Emesis for the Patients Who Received High-Emetogenic Chemotherapy with Standard Antiemetic Prophylaxis (KHMC-HO-01): An Open-Label, Randomized Study

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most important issues associated with chemotherapy. The additional or synergistic effect of acupuncture on CINV remains controversial.

Methods

Patients were randomized into either the group that received standard antiemetics with acupuncture (Arm A) or standard antiemetics only (Arm C). Acupuncture with manual stimulation was applied at eight predefined points and was started before the first cycle of chemotherapy on the first day and two additional sessions were administered on the second day of chemotherapy. Acute and delayed CINV was assessed using the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching (RINVR) and the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). The primary outcome was the delayed nausea score assessed using the RINVR.

Results

Overall, 42 patients were included. In the delay phase, the severity of delayed nausea was slightly lower without significance in Arm A than in Arm C (5.35 vs. 5.98, p = 0.3011). Similarly, patients in Arm A reported less severe vomiting than those in Arm C (0.75 vs. 1.25, p = 0.3064). Delayed nausea and vomiting assessed by the MAT showed significant relief with acupuncture compared to standard antiemesis alone. In terms of acute emesis, there was no significant difference between the two arms according to either scoring method.

Conclusions

Delayed nausea after HEC tended to decrease with acupuncture using the RINVR score, though it was also not significant. With the MAT assessment, delayed emesis (nausea and vomiting) was significantly improved with acupuncture, suggesting a promising effect of acupuncture. This trial is registered with KCT0006477.

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.

Medical Therapies for Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder that manifests with abdominal pain and diarrheal bowel patterns, without structural explanation. Diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome is a heterogeneous condition resulting from diverse pathophysiologic processes. Treatment strategies with varied mechanisms of action are beneficial in its management. The clinician must become familiar with a multi-dimensional approach to irritable bowel syndrome. The 3 approved medications are central to disease management. Effective treatment uses off-label medications and emerging therapies and a growing number of over-the-counter and supplemental agents to optimize symptom improvement for the patient with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome.

Ramosetron versus Palonosetron in Combination with Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Control of Highly-Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting.

Materials and Methods

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by sex, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, -2.3%; 95% CI, -13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score ≥ 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In all aspects of efficacy, safety and QOL, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.

Effects of ondansetron and [6]-gingerol on pica and gut microbiota in rats treated with cisplatin

Purpose

[6]-gingerol is one of the main components of ginger with many biological activities. In this study, the effects of ondansetron and [6]-gingerol on pica and gut microbiota in rats injected with cisplatin were evaluated.

Materials and methods

Rat model of cisplatin-induced pica was established, and the effects of ondansetron and [6]-gingerol on the gut microbiota were further studied by 16S rDNA gene analysis.

Results

The results showed that the total intake of kaolin of the rats injected with cisplatin was significantly increased, and treatment of ondansetron and [6]-gingerol in advance could significantly ameliorate the pica induced by cisplatin. The body weight of the rats injected with cisplatin was decreased compared with the control group. The 16S rDNA gene analysis has shown that ondansetron, [6]-gingerol and cisplatin could increase the relative abundance of Bacteroidetes and decrease Firmicutes on phylum level.

Conclusion

[6]-gingerol was as effective as ondansetron in the treatment of pica induced by cisplatin in rats, and it seemed that [6]-gingerol had the potential to ameliorate the alteration of gut microbiome, but it needs further study.

Ramosetron for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Ramosetron is a potent and selective serotonin type 3 receptor antagonist. This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of ramosetron for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D).

Methods

Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy and safety of ramosetron for IBS-D. Risk of bias was assessed as described in the Cochrane handbook. A random effects model was used to calculate the effects of ramosetron vs placebo on symptomatic improvements, including relief of overall IBS symptoms, relief of abdominal discomfort/pain, improvement in abnormal bowel habits, and improvement in stool consistency, expressed as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Adverse events data were also summarized with RRs.

Results

Four randomized controlled trials involving 1623 participants were included. Compared with placebo, ramosetron could lead to relief of overall IBS symptoms (RR 1.70; 95%CI 1.48, 1.95), relief of abdominal discomfort/pain (RR 1.41; 95%CI, 1.24, 1.59), improvement in abnormal bowel habits (RR 1.72; 95%CI, 1.50, 1.98) and improvement in stool consistency (RR 1.71; 95%CI 1.40, 2.08). Ramosetron could lead to relief of overall IBS symptoms in both male and female patients (RR; 95%CI: 1.94; 1.58, 2.38 and 1.49; 1.25, 1.79). The RR (95%CI) for reported adverse events of ramosetron vs placebo was 1.10 (0.97, 1.26) across all studies. No serious adverse events (e.g., ischemic colitis) were reported. The incidences of hard stool and constipation were higher in ramosetron group compared with placebo group (RR; 95%CI: 4.74; 3.00, 7.51 and 2.53; 1.57, 4.10, respectively).

Conclusions

Ramosetron had beneficial effects to both male and female IBS-D patients. Treatment with ramosetron could cause more hard stool and constipation, without severe adverse events.

Comparative effectiveness of ramosetron for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ramosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

An electronic search of CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, KoreaMed, KISS, KMbase, and DBpia was performed. Published RCTs comparing ramosetron treatment and other 5-HT3RAs to prevent CINV were included, and studies reporting at least one clinical outcome about efficacy were included. Assessment of risk of bias and data extraction of the included studies was conducted by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included, with nine studies reporting nausea and 13 reporting vomiting. In the acute phase, ramosetron significantly reduced nausea compared to other 5-HT3RAs (RR 1.11; 95 % CI 1.10 to 1.22, P = 0.03), as well as acute vomiting (RR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.01 to 1.08, P = 0.02). In the delayed phase, there was no difference in the complete response of nausea between ramosetron and other 5-HT3RAs, whereas ramosetron significantly decreased emesis compared to other 5-HT3RAs. Also, there were no significant differences between ramosetron versus other 5-HT3RAs for common adverse reactions such as headache, diarrhea, dizziness, and constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study's findings suggest that ramosetron for CINV is as effective and tolerable as other 5-HT3RAs, based on the currently available evidence from RCTs. However, owing to methodological flaws in the current RCTs, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the effect of ramosetron on acute or delayed CINV in cancer patients.

Cannabinoids As Potential Treatment for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Despite the advent of classic anti-emetics, chemotherapy-induced nausea is still problematic, with vomiting being somewhat better managed in the clinic. If post-treatment nausea and vomiting are not properly controlled, anticipatory nausea—a conditioned response to the contextual cues associated with illness-inducing chemotherapy—can develop. Once it develops, anticipatory nausea is refractive to current anti-emetics, highlighting the need for alternative treatment options. One of the first documented medicinal uses of Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ⁹-THC) was for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and recent evidence is accumulating to suggest a role for the endocannabinoid system in modulating CINV. Here, we review studies assessing the therapeutic potential of cannabinoids and manipulations of the endocannabinoid system in human patients and pre-clinical animal models of nausea and vomiting.