A phase II, randomized study of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapies in colorectal cancer patients

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Evaluation of Antiemetic Therapy for Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin

Purpose

Our aim was to compare the antiemetic efficacy of the triple combination of aprepitant, dolasetron and dexamethasone with the combination of dolasetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients receiving hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX).

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective study. In the dolasetron plus dexamethasone group (D group), the patients received dolasetron (100 mg, i.v., on day 1) and dexamethasone (10 mg, i.v., on day 1) 30 min before starting administration of chemotherapeutic drugs. In the aprepitant plus dolasetron and dexamethasone group (AD group), the patients received dolasetron and dexamethasone as described above, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate (CR, defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) during the first cycle of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy.

Results

Between January 2018 and August 2019, 302 eligible patients were included: 197 in AD group and 105 in D group. Patients in AD group had significantly higher complete response rates than those in D group during the first cycle (85.8% vs 71.4%, P = 0.003) and all cycles (73.6% vs 49.5%, P<0.001). Patients in AD group had lower rescue therapy (1.5% vs 26.7%, P<0.001) and lower incidence of disruption related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (0.5% vs 6.7%, P = 0.002) than patients in D group.

Conclusion

Aprepitant, dolasetron plus dexamethasone is more effective to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with FOLFOX-HAIC therapy than dolasetron plus dexamethasone.

Efficacy of Olanzapine-Triple Antiemetic Regimen in Patients with Gastrointestinal Tumor and High Risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

Dexamethasone combined with 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RA) dual regimen is the standard prophylaxis regimen for patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). However, it has been found in real-world practice that chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains poorly controlled among patients with gastrointestinal tumor, especially in those with high-risk factors for vomiting, such as female, young, and non-alcoholic individuals. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an olanzapine-containing triple regimen in this clinical setting.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of gastrointestinal tumor patients who received mFOLFOX6, XELOX, or FOLFIRI chemotherapy at two institutions. All patients included were female and less than 55 years old, with no history of drinking. The patients were divided into two groups for olanzapine-containing triple therapy (olanzapine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone) and non-olanzapine dual therapy (tropisetron and dexamethasone). The study outcomes were complete response (CR), complete control (CC), nausea control, and quality of life (QoL) by the functional living index-emesis (FLIE) questionnaire.

Results

A total of 93 patients were included in the study (olanzapine: 40; control: 53). The CR rate in the olanzapine group was significantly higher than that in the control group in delayed and overall phase (75.0% vs 54.7%, p=0.044; 70.0% vs 47.2%; p=0.028). The CC rate in the overall phase was also better in the olanzapine group (62.5% vs 39.6%, p=0.029). The control of nausea in the overall phase showed a superior trend in the olanzapine group (p=0.059). The olanzapine group exhibited higher FLIE scores, which demonstrated better QoL. More patients in the olanzapine group exhibited somnolence and dizziness. Conversely, the incidence of insomnia and anorexia in the olanzapine group was lower.

Conclusion

This retrospective study indicates that in gastrointestinal tumor patients with high-risk factors for CINV who were receiving MEC, olanzapine-containing triple antiemetic regimen exhibit better efficacy and QoL as compared to non-olanzapine dual regimen. Further randomized studies are required to confirm these results.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry-Based Plasma Metabolomics Study of the Effects of Moxibustion with Seed-Sized Moxa Cone on Hyperlipidemia

Hyperlipidemia (HLP) is a disorder with disturbed lipid metabolism. HLP is a major risk factor in cardiovascular diseases, atherosclerosis, diabetes mellitus, and coronary heart disease. This study focuses on understanding the effects of moxibustion with a seed-sized moxa cone on HLP and the potential metabolic pathways associated with HLP. An automatic analyzer was used to measure the levels of total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in healthy controls (HCs), HLP patients, and in patients before moxibustion with seed-sized moxa cone treatment (BMT) and after moxibustion treatment (AMT). Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and pathway analyses were performed using differential plasma metabolites derived from the HC, HLP, BMT, and AMT groups. Higher levels of TC, TG, and LDL-C and lower levels of HDL-C were detected in HLP patients than in HCs. The levels of TC and TG were significantly decreased in the AMT group compared to those of the BMT group. A total of 87 differential metabolites were identified from the HLP vs HC samples and 51 for the AMT vs BMT samples. Of these, 21 terms were shared. The differential metabolites in both the HLP vs HC and AMT vs BMT groups were significantly enriched in the glycerophospholipid and sphingolipid metabolism pathways. We suggest that moxibustion with seed-sized moxa cone treatment is effective against hyperlipidemia by altering the levels of TC and TG, which might be regulated by glycerophospholipid and sphingolipid metabolism.

Effect of nerve electrical stimulation for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced gastric cancer: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of nerve electrical stimulation (NES) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

METHODS

One hundred twenty-four eligible patients with AGC were included in this randomized controlled trial. They were equally divided the NES group and the sham group. The patients in the NES group received NES intervention, while the subjects in the sham group underwent sham NES. The primary outcome included symptoms severity and appetite. The secondary outcomes included quality of life, as measured by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) score, and functional impairment, as evaluated by the Karnofsky score. Additionally, adverse events were also documented during the period of the treatment.

RESULTS

After treatment, NES showed greater effectiveness in reducing the severity of nausea (P = .02), and vomiting (P = .04), as well as the appetite improvement (P = .02), compared with the sham NES. Furthermore, no adverse events related to NES treatment were detected.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrated that NES may help to relieve CINV in patients with AGC. Future studies are still needed to warrant these results.

Optimal prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a meta-analysis

AIM

We compare neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1RA)-based triple regimen and conventional duplex regimen for antiemetic efficacy for patients with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Patients & methods: Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were used to evaluate the complete response and no significant nausea. The results were separately analyzed for pure MEC regimens, carboplatin-based regimens and oxaliplatin-based regimens.

RESULTS

Ten trials focused on MEC involving 2928 cancer patients using NK-1RA triple regimens or conventional duplex regimen were included. NK-1RA-based triple regimen showed significant better complete responses in overall (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05-1.24), acute (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.00-1.04) and delayed (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04-1.23) phase compared with duplex regimen in patients with MEC. Similar results were found for no significant nausea. Subgroup analyses showed that triple regimen showed superior antiemetic efficacy significantly in patients with carboplatin-based chemotherapy, instead of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

NK-1RA is recommended to use in carboplatin-based chemotherapy, not oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

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

Is the addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist beneficial in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) excluding anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based regimens.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed and OVID) and Central databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT₃ RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy endpoints were complete response (CR), no emesis and no nausea rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials (3848 patients) were identified. Results were separately analyzed for (a) pure MEC regimens (excluding regimens containing carboplatin or oxaliplatin), (b) carboplatin-based regimens, and (c) oxaliplatin-based regimens. (a) Two trials (abstracts) enrolled 715 patients. The odds ratio for overall CR with the addition of an NK1-RA was 1.46 (95% 1.06-2.02; p = 0.02) with an absolute risk difference (RD) of 8%. (b) Nine trials (1790 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.96 (95% CI 1.57-2.45; p < 0.00001) in favor of the NK1RA containing regimen with an RD of 15%. (c) Three trials (1190 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.34 (95% CI 0.88-2.04; p = 0.17) not reaching statistical significance with a RD of 4%.

CONCLUSION

Clear clinically significant benefit was seen with the addition of NK1RAs in carboplatin-based chemotherapy. A global benefit of an NK1RA containing regimen for the whole MEC category cannot be attested yet and warrants more randomized trials exclusively testing pure MEC regimens without carboplatin.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Incidence and Management in Jordan

Cancer patients experience a considerable number of symptoms during the course of their disease. Of these symptoms, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most reported and it increases the cancer burden on patients. This study aims to assess the current status of CINV among Jordanian cancer patients, with regard to its incidence and management. A descriptive cross-sectional survey design was used. The study sample was 185 cancer patients. The mean age of participants was 46.6 years ( SD = 15.5, range = 18-76) and were mainly female (56.8%). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was high at 71.4% and 57.3%, respectively. Most of the patients (89.7%) received a 5-HT₃ antagonist therapy combined with corticosteroids therapy (81.1%). This study demonstrated a high incidence rate of all types of CINV, which was undertreated. Antiemetic treatment could be improved by encouraging nurses to introduce the internationally agreed guidelines into their daily clinical practice.

Antiemetic therapy for non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Although antiemetic management in cancer therapy has improved, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remain common and troubling adverse events. Chemotherapeutic agents are classified based on their emetogenic effects, and appropriate antiemetics are recommended according to this categorization. Chemotherapy categorized as moderately emetogenic is associated with a wide spectrum of emetic risks. Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens have been recently reclassified as highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen. This review focuses on antiemetic pharmacotherapy in patients receiving non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Combination therapy with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor agonist, preferably palonosetron, and dexamethasone is the standard therapy in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, although triple therapy with add-on neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist is used as an alternative treatment strategy. Among moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, carboplatin-containing chemotherapy has considerable emetic potential, particularly during the delayed phase. However, the additional of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to the standard antiemetic therapy prevents carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. For regimens including oxaliplatin, the benefit of adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist requires further clarification.

Efficacy analysis of the aprepitant-combined antiemetic prophylaxis for non-round cell soft-tissue sarcoma patients received adriamycin and ifosfamide therapy

Appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with non-round cell soft-tissue sarcomas (NRC-STS) remains unclear. We retrospectively investigated efficacy and safety of aprepitant-combined antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with NRC-STS receiving adriamycin plus ifosfamide (AI) therapy. Forty NRC-STS patients were enrolled, their median age was 50 years (range 18-74), and 13 (32.5%) were female. Median cycle number of AI therapy was 4. Twenty patients received the doublet antiemetic prophylaxis (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone), and 20 received triplet (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant). In the overall period, complete response rate for nausea and emesis in the triplet group was significantly higher than that in the doublet group (70% vs 35%; P = 0.027). Patients with no-emesis in the overall period were more frequently observed in the triplet group than in the doublet group (90% vs 65%; P = 0.058). All toxicities other than emesis were almost equivalent in both the groups. These results suggest that a triplet antiemetic prophylaxis may be optimal in the treatment with AI therapy for NRC-STS.