Fosaprepitant versus aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-simulated, positive-controlled phase III trial

Anti-Emetics in Children Receiving Chemotherapy for Solid Tumors and Leukemia: Pharmacology and Optimization of Therapy for Nausea and Vomiting

The management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children remains challenging due to differences in the chemotherapy regimens, their relative emetogenicity compared to that in adults and differences in drug metabolism and the available formulations. The common four classes of anti-emetics used for the treatment and prophylaxis of CINV in children include dexamethasone, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), and olanzapine. The appropriate dose of dexamethasone for CINV prophylaxis in children is unknown, with a significant variability in dosage ranging between 6 and 32 mg/m2/day. The dose of dexamethasone is decreased by 30% when this drug is combined with (fos)aprepitant in children, in contrast to a decrease of 50% required in adults. The use of aprepitant in younger children (<12 years) is often hampered by the non-availability of oral suspension formulations in many countries; alternatively, 80 mg capsules are administered for 1-3 days in certain institutes to children weighing between 15 and 40 kg. Among the different 5HT3RAs, palonosetron is comparatively metabolized faster in children than in adults, requiring a higher dosage for similar efficacy to that achieved in adults. Olanzapine is a newer agent, used in doses between 0.1 and 0.14 mg/kg/day in children, with good anti-emetic efficacy, but has sedation and hyperglycemia as concerning adverse effects. Drug interactions between anti-emetics and between anti-emetics and chemotherapy/supportive agents (azole antifungals, cyclosporine, arsenic trioxide), especially QTc prolongation, should be considered during prescription.

An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter, Observational Study Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Akynzeo® in the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in India

Background Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common and unpleasant treatment-related side effect reported by cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Akynzeo® or NEPA (NEtupitant + PAlonosetron) is the first fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron that targets both critical pathways involved in emesis while providing a convenient, single oral dose therapy. The current study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of NEPA in a real-world setting in India. Methodology This was an open-label, multicenter, prospective, single-arm study conducted at six different locations across India. The study included patients of either gender, aged ≥18 years, naive to chemotherapy, scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC), and scheduled to receive oral NEPA, as determined by the investigator. Results A total of 360 people were screened and enrolled in the study. HEC was prescribed to 289 (81.64%) patients, while MEC was prescribed to 65 (18.36%) patients. Complete response was achieved in 94.92% of patients during the acute phase, 95.20% during the delayed phase, and 93.22% during the overall phase. During the overall phase, 92.73% and 95.38% of patients on the HEC and MEC regimens, respectively, achieved complete response. Adverse events were reported in 3.88% of patients. Conclusions Oral NEPA was found to be effective in the Indian real-world setting, eliciting a >90% complete response with HEC and MEC regimens across the acute, delayed, and overall phases.

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.

Validation of different personalized risk models of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of fosaprepitant for cancer patients treated with high-dose cisplatin

BACKGROUND

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in cancer patients without prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fosaprepitant-based triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with solid malignant tumors, determine risk factors and externally validate different personalized risk models for CINV.

METHODS

This phase III trial was designed to test the non-inferiority of fosaprepitant toward aprepitant in cancer patients who were to receive the first cycle of single-day cisplatin chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the overall phase (OP) with a non-inferiority margin of 10.0%. Logistic regression models were used to assess the risk factors of CR and no nausea. To validate the personalized risk models, the accuracy of the risk scoring systems was determined by measuring the specificity, sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), while the predictive accuracy of the nomogram was measured using concordance index (C-index).

RESULTS

A total of 720 patients were randomly assigned. CR during the OP in the fosaprepitant group was not inferior to that in the aprepitant group (78.1% vs. 77.7%, P = 0.765) with a between-group difference of 0.4% (95% CI, -5.7% to 6.6%). Female sex, higher cisplatin dose (≥ 70 mg/m² ), no history of drinking and larger body surface area (BSA) were significantly associated with nausea. The AUC for the acute and delayed CINV risk indexes was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66-0.71) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.61-0.70), respectively, and the C-index for nomogram CINV prediction was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.54-0.64). Using appropriate cutoff points, the three models could stratify patients with high- or low-risk CINV. No nausea and CR rate were significantly higher in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Fosaprepitant-based triple prophylaxis demonstrated non-inferior control for preventing CINV in patients treated with cisplatin-base chemotherapy. Female cancer patients without a history of alcohol consumption, with larger BSA and received high-dose cisplatin might be more vulnerable to CINV. Three personalized prediction models were well-validated and could be used to optimize antiemetic therapy for individual patients.

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.

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.