Search

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the clinical efficacy of a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) among female patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal tract tumors. Methods: Patients undergoing the oxaliplatin/irinotecan chemotherapy regimen were enrolled in this prospective controlled study. The olanzapine group received a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine along with palonosetron and dexamethasone, while the control group received a standard two-combination regimen consisting of dexamethasone and palonosetron. The primary endpoints included the total protection (TP) rates for the entire age group and the subgroup aged 60 years and above. Secondary endpoints encompassed the total protection rates during the acute and delayed phases within the two age brackets, as well as the total control (TC) rates and complete remission (CR) rates across all three phases (total, acute, and delayed). Additionally, the study involved the assessment of quality of life and the collection of adverse events associated with the interventions. Results: 1) Regarding the primary endpoint, the total phase TP rates within both the entire age group and the age group exceeding 60 years demonstrated superiority in the olanzapine group when compared to the control group (66.7% vs 37.25%, P = 0.003; 68.8% vs 44.4%, P = 0.044). 2) In terms of secondary endpoints, the olanzapine group exhibited superior acute phase TP rates in both age brackets when compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The olanzapine group also demonstrated higher delayed-phase TP rates, TC rates across all three phases, and CR rates within the two age brackets, although the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the quality of life in the olanzapine group surpassed that of the control group for both age brackets (P < 0.05), characterized by enhanced appetite and a higher incidence of drowsiness in the patients treated with olanzapine when compared to those in the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Olanzapine can enhance CINV induced by MEC regimen in female patients across all age groups, including the elderly, and therefore improve the quality of life for these patients. Clinical Trial Registration:, identifier: ChiCTR20000368269, 25/08/2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a severe adverse event that negatively affects a patient's quality of life (QOL). The reasons for CINV and hospitalization after chemotherapy include poor adherence to guidelines and not prescribing the appropriate outpatient antiemetic drugs. At Tampa General Hospital, a pharmacist-led service model was created at the outpatient infusion center to contact patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy to assess the incidence of CINV and to provide appropriate therapy recommendations. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a pharmacist follow-up on the incidence of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, or infusion center appointments for CINV, with or without dehydration, within 30 days of receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as the impact of CINV on patients' QOL. METHODS: In this single-center, retrospective study we compared patients who received an antiemetic drug regimen at our institution. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the intervention group included patients who had telephone follow-up by a pharmacist within 48 hours of initiating moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy between January and July 2020 and a historical control group of patients who received treatment between January and July 2019 and did not have follow-up with a pharmacist. During the follow-up calls, the pharmacist assessed the patient's adherence to an antiemetic drug regimen, the incidence of CINV, the patient's QOL, and the need for intervention. RESULTS: The study involved a total of 111 patients, including 68 patients in the intervention group and 43 patients in the historical control cohort. The incidence of the primary composite end point of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, or infusion center appointments for CINV, with or without dehydration, within 30 days of receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy was 1.5% in the intervention group compared with 7% in the control group (P = .129). Significantly more patients in the control group were not prescribed outpatient antiemetic drugs than those in the intervention group (27.9% vs 1.5%, respectively; P <.000024). In the overall study population, 40% of all administered antiemetic drug regimens adhered to the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. CONCLUSION: The pharmacist-led service model did not significantly affect emergency department or clinic visits for CINV, but it did result in a significant increase in prophylactic prescribing of antiemetic drugs. Nevertheless, this finding suggests that a follow-up call by a pharmacist for patients who are administered highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy may have a positive impact on the patients' QOL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24–120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3‐day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX‐sparing regimens with 3‐day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea. Patients and Methods: This open‐label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX‐sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2–3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1–3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy‐naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at −20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics‐associated side effects. Results: Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin‐based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, −11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, −12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms. Conclusion: This study showed that DEX‐sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple‐day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.govidentifier. NCT02135510. Implications for Practice: Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24–120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX‐sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX‐sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple‐day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3‐day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV—and nausea in particular—following MEC. Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting in the delayed phase after chemotherapy are troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. This article compares the efficacy and safety of two dexamethasone‐sparing regimens with multiple‐day dexamethasone, focusing on delayed nausea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The 5‐hydroxytryptamine‐3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (PALO) is approved (United States/Europe) as an oral formulation for prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting in adult cancer patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for the acute phase only, in the United States, or as intravenous (IV) formulation in patients undergoing MEC or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. This phase III study compares the efficacy/safety of oral versus IV PALO in Chinese patients. Methods: Chemotherapy‐naive patients with solid tumours scheduled for MEC received oral PALO 0.50 mg or IV PALO 0.25 mg. The primary objective was to demonstrate non‐inferiority in terms of patients with complete response in the acute phase (0–24 hr post‐chemotherapy). Results: Complete response rates (acute phase), evaluated in 318/320 randomised patients, were 84.6% and 85.9% for oral and IV PALO respectively. Non‐inferiority was demonstrated; the two formulations showed similar efficacy/safety. Conclusion: Non‐inferiority of oral versus IV PALO in the acute phase was demonstrated in Chinese patients. Clinical trial registration: CTR20140711. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To determine quality of life, effectiveness and safety of oral netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA)-based antiemetic prophylaxis in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: Prospective, noninterventional study in adults receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NEPA for three cycles. NEPA was administered per summary of product characteristics. Results: A total of 2429 patients enrolled, 2173 were evaluable. 'No impact on daily life' due to vomiting was reported by 85%/82% of patients in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy groups in cycle 1, with rates of 54%/59% for nausea. Overall, complete response rate was 89%/87%/83% in the acute/delayed/overall phases. NEPA was well tolerated. Conclusion: NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients and was safe and effective in the real-world setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nausea can be particularly prominent during the delayed period. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the available randomised evidence to assess the average effect of palonosetron plus one-day dexamethasone (DEX; also called the DEX-sparing strategy) compared with palonosetron plus 3-day DEX for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), focusing on delayed nausea.Methods: Eligible studies were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. Data on acute and delayed CINV were collected. Efficacy end points were complete response (CR; no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication), complete protection (CP; CR plus no clinically significant nausea), and total control (TC; CR plus no nausea) during the delayed period (days 2-5 after chemotherapy initiation). All randomised studies comparing palonosetron plus single-dose DEX (with or without another active agent) on day 1 followed by either no further DEX or additional DEX doses (both alone or in combination with another active agent) qualified.Results: Of 864 citations screened, 8 studies with 1970 patients were included in the meta-analysis. During the delayed period, the combined odds ratio (OR) for all comparisons was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.12) for CR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.03) for CP, and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.77-1.11) for TC in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (AC). The absolute risk difference (RD) computations for all end points in the delayed period did not exceed the threshold of - 4% (range, - 1% to - 4%). The effect was similar in subgroups defined by various study design parameters. The absolute RD computations in the acute period did not exceed the threshold of 1% (range, 0 to 1%). For one-day vs. 3-day DEX, numbers needed to be treated in order for one additional patient to not experience CR, CP and TC over the delayed period were 100, 25 and 50, respectively.Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates that DEX-sparing regimens do not cause any significant loss in protection against not only vomiting but also nausea induced by single-day MEC or AC during the delayed period. These data should lead clinicians to optimise use of prophylactic DEX in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A dexamethasone‐sparing regimen consisting of palonosetron plus 1‐day dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been studied previously. Here, we evaluate the noninferiority of the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen in overall antiemetic control using a meta‐analysis based on individual patient data (IPD). Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review for randomized trials reporting CINV outcomes for the comparison of palonosetron plus 1‐day dexamethasone (d1 arm) versus the same regimen followed by dexamethasone on days 2–3 after chemotherapy (d3 arm) in chemotherapy‐naïve adult patients undergoing either moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)‐containing chemotherapy. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched electronically. A manual search was also conducted. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the overall 5‐day study period. The noninferiority margin was set at −8.0% (d1 arm−d3 arm). Results: Five studies (n = 1,194) were eligible for analysis and all IPD was collected. In the overall study period, the d1 arm showed noninferiority to the d3 arm for CR as well as complete control (pooled risk difference in CR rate − 1.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −7.1 to 4.0%, I2 = 0%; in complete control rate − 2.4%, 95% CI −7.7 to 2.9%, I2 = 0%). There was no significant interaction between dexamethasone regimen and risk factors (type of chemotherapy, sex, age, and alcohol consumption). Conclusion: This IPD meta‐analysis indicates that the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall antiemetic control in patients undergoing MEC or AC‐containing chemotherapy, irrespective of known risk factors for CINV. Implications for Practice: Although dexamethasone in combination with other antiemetic agents has been used to prevent chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), it is of clinical importance to minimize total dose of dexamethasone in patients undergoing multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy. This individual‐patient‐data meta‐analysis from five randomized controlled trials (1,194 patients) demonstrated a noninferiority of the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen for complete response and complete control of CINV. The outcomes were comparable across patients with different characteristics. These findings thus help physicians minimize use of the steroid and further reduce the burden of dexamethasone‐related side effects in patients undergoing multiple consecutive courses of emetogenic chemotherapy. Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting are common adverse effects associated with the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs. This article evaluates differences in complete response rates and other antiemetic outcomes in dexamethasone‐spacing regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The analysis was conducted to assess a cost-efficacy analysis of new antiemetic drugs (netupitant plus palonosetron (NEPA)) for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for cancer treatment. Areas covered:The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of NEPA versus (vs.) palonosetron for the prophylaxis of CINV. We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in complete response (CR), for each trial. Our analysis evaluated 2 RCTs, including 1720 patients. Referring to both highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, NEPA plus DEX was economic superior to palonosetron (PALO) plus DEX, with 13 312 € and 7885 € gain in medical costs every 100 patients treated, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) (€/CR) in highly emetoge nic risk were 1.24 and 13.23 for the NEPA and PALO group, respectively and 1.49 and 15.20 for the same groups in moderately emetogenic risk. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was 1016.18 €/CR and 1024.03 €/CR in highly and moderately emetogenic risk, respectively. Expert opinion:The combination of NEPA plus DEX is cost-effective for preventing CINV in highly and moderately (AC-based) emetogenic cancer treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting diminishes quality of life and increases healthcare resource use. This retrospective medical records analysis evaluated hydration requirements with emetogenic chemotherapy.Patients& Methods: Cancer patients received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), and antiemetics palonosetron or granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Unscheduled hydration event rates were determined.Results: For 186 patients (92 palonosetron, 94 GERSC) overall, mean hydration rate was significantly higher with palonosetron (0.6 vs 0.2; p = 0.0005). Proportion of patients with ≥1 hydration event was significantly higher with palonosetron overall (54 vs 33%; p = 0.0033) and in cycles 2-4 and the HEC subgroup.Conclusion: GERSC within a three-drug antiemetic regimen may reduce unscheduled hydration requirements with MEC or HEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Fosaprepitant improved prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a randomized, double-blind phase III trial (PN031). This post hoc analysis explored factors that may have influenced response.Methods: Adult subjects (N = 1000) scheduled to receive non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) on day 1 were randomly assigned 1:1 to a single-dose, 150-mg intravenous fosaprepitant regimen or a control regimen. Both regimens included dexamethasone and ondansetron on day 1, with ondansetron continuing through day 3 in the control arm only. Complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) rates in the acute, delayed, and overall phases (0-25, 25-120, and 0-120 h, respectively) were analyzed by chemotherapy type (carboplatin-based vs non-carboplatin-based), chemotherapy duration (single-day vs multiple-day), and baseline characteristics.Results: Most subjects received single-day chemotherapeutic regimens (70.6%), which were mainly carboplatin-based (67.6%). CR with fosaprepitant was consistent (76-80%) during the delayed and overall phases in carboplatin-based and non-carboplatin-based subgroups and in subgroups receiving single-day or multiple-day MEC regimens. Treatment effects favored fosaprepitant for the carboplatin-based versus the non-carboplatin-based group during the delayed phase (14.1 vs 6.5%; p = 0.06), and for the single-day versus the multiple-day subgroup during the delayed (13.2 vs 3.2%; p = 0.02) and overall phases (12.8 vs 4.0%; p = 0.06).Conclusions: This exploratory analysis confirms that single-dose fosaprepitant is effective for the prevention of CINV in subjects receiving carboplatin or non-carboplatin in both single- and multiple-day non-AC MEC chemotherapy regimens. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01594749. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Most patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy experience chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting without antiemetic prophylaxis. While neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonists (NK‐1RAs) effectively prevent emesis, their ability to prevent nausea has not been established. We evaluated the efficacy of the long‐acting NK‐1RA rolapitant in preventing chemotherapy‐induced nausea using post hoc analyses of data from 3 phase 3 trials. Patients were randomized to receive 180 mg oral rolapitant or placebo approximately 1‐2 hours before chemotherapy in combination with a 5‐hydroxytryptamine type 3 RA and dexamethasone. Nausea was assessed by visual analog scale during the acute (≤24 hours), delayed (>24‐120 hours), and overall (0‐120 hours) phases. Post hoc analyses by treatment group (rolapitant vs control) were performed on pooled data within patient subgroups receiving cisplatin‐based, carboplatin‐based, or anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)‐based chemotherapy. In the cisplatin‐based chemotherapy group, significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reported no nausea (NN) in the overall (52.3% vs 41.7% [P < .001]; absolute benefit [AB] = 10.6%), delayed (55.7% vs 44.3% [P < .001]; AB = 11.4%), and acute (70.5% vs 64.3% [P = .030]; AB = 6.2%) phases. Similar results were observed in the carboplatin‐based chemotherapy group, with significantly more patients receiving rolapitant than control reporting NN in the overall (62.5% vs 51.2% [P = .023]; AB = 11.3%) and delayed (64.1% vs 53.6% [P = .034]; AB = 10.5%) phases. In the AC‐based chemotherapy group, patients receiving rolapitant or control reported similar NN rates during the overall and delayed phases. Rolapitant effectively prevents nausea during the overall and delayed phases in patients receiving cisplatin‐ or carboplatin‐based chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a challenge in cancer care. Improved understanding of CINV pathophysiology has triggered the development of new antiemetic therapeutic options, such as selective neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists (RAs), which effectively prevent CINV when added to a standard antiemetic regimen (serotonin-3 RA and dexamethasone). Aprepitant and its water-soluble prodrug, fosaprepitant dimeglumine, are the most widely used NK1 RAs, with extensive clinical use worldwide. Recently, a Phase III trial prospectively evaluated fosaprepitant-based antiemetic therapy for CINV prevention in a large, well-defined nonanthracycline- and cyclophosphamide-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy population. Fosaprepitant demonstrated significantly improved efficacy outcomes compared with a control regimen and was generally well tolerated, indicating that NK1 RAs are a valuable therapeutic option in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of oral aprepitant in rescue treatment after the primary rescue for breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Methods: This was a single-institutional phase 2 study. Patients who had received MEC regimens and developed breakthrough CINV despite antiemetic prophylaxis without aprepitant were treated with primary rescue antiemetic treatments chosen by physicians. When the primary rescue (1st rescue) failed, patients received oral aprepitant as the second rescue (2nd rescue). The primary endpoint of this study was the proportion of patients requiring aprepitant as the 2nd rescue and experiencing successful rescue (SR). SR was defined as no vomiting and no need for additional rescue therapy, with nausea up to grade 1 on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and a Visual Analog Scale score of 25 mm, for 48 h after initiation of aprepitant. Results: Eighty patients were eligible for this analysis. Thirty-eight (47.5%) developed breakthrough emesis and received 1st rescue. The 1st rescue was ineffective in 29 (76.3%) patients, and they received the 2nd rescue with aprepitant. Thirteen of these 29 patients (16.3% of the total patients) satisfied the criteria for SR. The primary endpoint, SR rate, in patients treated with aprepitant, was 44.8% (95% confidence interval 26.4-64.4). Conclusion: Since the lower end of the 95% confidence interval of SR is 26.4%, the SR in our study did not meet the predefined primary endpoint threshold. However, aprepitant was estimated to be useful in suppressing breakthrough CINV in 16% of the patients treated with MEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. CINV typically manifests during two well-defined time periods (acute and delayed phases). The acute phase is the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and is largely managed with 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists. The delayed phase, a 5-day at-risk period during which patients are not often in direct contact with their health care provider, remains a significant unmet medical need. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists have demonstrated protection against acute and delayed CINV in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy when used in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Furthermore, recent data indicate that this protection is maintained over multiple treatment cycles. Rolapitant, a selective and long-acting NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved as oral formulation for the prevention of delayed CINV in adults. This review discusses the differential pharmacology and clinical utility of rolapitant in preventing CINV compared with other NK-1 receptor antagonists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even when chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be effectively controlled in the acute phase, it may still occur in the delayed phase. Identifying atrisk patients is complex and requires consideration of clinical, personal, demographic, and behavioral factors. Delayed CINV has a significant detrimental effect on patients' daily life and is responsible for significant healthcare resource utilization. Patients who do not experience acute CINV are not necessarily exempt from delayed CINV, and healthcare professionals have been shown to underestimate the incidence of delayed CINV. Failure to protect against CINV during the first cycle of chemotherapy is the most significant independent risk factor for delayed CINV during subsequent cycles. Addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic prophylactic regimens involving a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid helps to ameliorate delayed CINV, particularly vomiting. Netupitant and rolapitant are secondgeneration neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists that provide effective prophylaxis against delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting and also have an antinausea benefit. All of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists with the exception of rolapitant inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), and a reduced dose of dexamethasone (a CYP3A4 substrate) should be administered with aprepitant or netupitant; by contrast, this is not necessary with rolapitant. Here we review specific challenges associated with delayed CINV, its pathophysiology, epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes relative to acute CINV, and its management within the larger context of overall CINV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a debilitating side effect of many cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. Although sustained antiemetic control across repeated chemotherapy cycles is important for cancer treatment continuation, few studies have investigated the efficacy of antiemetic prophylaxis over multiple chemotherapy cycles. Areas covered: Here we discuss the use of antiemetic hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor and neurokinin (NK)-1 receptor antagonists for prevention of CINV, limiting our review to clinical trials in the context of multiple-cycle chemotherapy, with a focus on the NK-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant. 5-HT3receptor antagonists may be effective in controlling CINV over repeated chemotherapy cycles, but evidence comes primarily from noncomparative studies. NK-1 receptor antagonists provide increased protection against CINV but differences in endpoint selection and methods of analysis preclude meaningful comparisons between agents. Rolapitant shows sustained control of emesis and nausea over multiple cycles of chemotherapy, and compared to other NK-1 receptor antagonists, has a longer half-life and reduced potential for cytochrome P450 3A4-mediated drug-drug interactions. Expert commentary: Trial design should be a key consideration in future studies of CINV therapies, including analytical methods utilized, choice of endpoints, and methods for accounting for nonresponders and patient attrition over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy published after the last MASCC/ESMO antiemetic consensus conference in 2009 has been carried out.Methods: A systematic literature search using PubMed from January 1, 2009 to January 6, 2015 with a restriction to papers in English was conducted.Results: Overall, two randomized phase II and seven randomized phase III studies plus the results of three subgroup analysis of large phase III trials and those of a pilot study have been included.Conclusions: In carboplatin-treated patients, a moderate benefit from adding an NK1 receptor antagonist to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist has been shown. However, in oxaliplatin-treated patients, contrasting results about the role of NK1 receptor antagonists have been obtained. At present, it is not possible to suggest a specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to use for the prevention of acute emesis in these patients. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis is recommended but in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with known potential for delayed emesis (e.g., oxaliplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) the use of dexamethasone for days 2-3 can be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Recommended treatments for prevention of CINV vary among published guidelines, and optimal care for CINV caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy has not been established. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant for carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer scheduled for a first course of a carboplatin-containing regimen formed the study cohort. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron (0.75 mg, i.v.) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg, i.v.) on day 1, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not experience vomiting and did not require rescue medication [complete response (CR)] in the acute phase (0-24 h), late phase (24-168 h) and overall. Secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced no vomiting episodes and no more than mild nausea without the need for rescue medication [complete control (CC)]. Results: Prevalence of a CR during the acute phase, delayed phase, and overall was 100, 91.9 and 91.9%, whereas that of CC was 100, 84.4 and 84.4%, respectively. The most common adverse event was mild constipation; severe adverse events related to antiemetic treatment were not observed. Conclusion: Triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant shows excellent effects in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving a carboplatin-containing regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rolapitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, provided effective protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimen. The current analysis explored the efficacy and safety of rolapitant in preventing CINV in a subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin.Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant (180 mg) or a placebo 1 to 2 hours before chemotherapy administration; all patients received oral granisetron (2 mg) on days 1 to 3 and oral dexamethasone (20 mg) on day 1. A post hoc analysis examined the subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin in cycle 1. The efficacy endpoints were as follows: complete response (CR), no emesis, no nausea, no significant nausea, complete protection, time to first emesis or use of rescue medication, and no impact on daily life.Results: In the subgroup administered carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 401), a significantly higher proportion of patients in the rolapitant group versus the control group achieved a CR in the overall phase (0-120 hours; 80.2% vs 64.6%; P < .001) and in the delayed phase (>24-120 hours; 82.3% vs 65.6%; P < .001) after chemotherapy administration. Superior responses were also observed by the measures of no emesis, no nausea, and complete protection in the overall and delayed phases and by the time to first emesis or use of rescue medication. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for the rolapitant and control groups.Conclusions: Rolapitant provided superior CINV protection to patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy in comparison with the control. These results support rolapitant use as part of the antiemetic regimen in carboplatin-treated patients. Cancer 2016;122:2418-2425. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed to study the efficacy of aprepitant in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for colorectal cancer (CRC), and comprised a multicenter, phase II, open-label, randomized, parallel comparative study conducted as part of the Kagoshima aprepitant study for colon cancer in Japan. Patients with advanced or recurrent CRC were treated with standard MEC regimens (FOLFOX, XELOX or FOLFIRI) and received either standard chemotherapy [5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) + dexamethasone] or aprepitant regimen chemotherapy (5-HT3 RA + reduced-dose dexamethasone + aprepitant). The primary endpoint of the present study was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR) during the overall, acute, and delayed phases of the first planned chemotherapy cycle. Secondary endpoints were complete protection, the proportions of patients without emetic episodes or nausea, patients with no more than moderate nausea during the overall, acute and delayed phases, and the time to treatment failure. The CR rates in the overall, acute and delayed phases were similar in the aprepitant and the standard-regimen groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences in secondary endpoints between the two groups. In summary, aprepitant in combination with 5-HT3RA and reduced-dose corticosteroids was well tolerated and effective in preventing CINV associated with moderately emetogenic antitumor agents in Japanese patients with CRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although palonosetron (PALO) and NK receptor antagonist both reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, no comparison trial in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) had been reported. The purpose of this study was to find out which drug combinations are preferable for patients receiving MEC. Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients receiving MEC were randomized to two groups; group A first received PALO therapy [PALO plus 1-day dexamethasone (DEX)], and group B first received fosaprepitant (FAPR) therapy [FAPR, granisetron (GRAN), and DEX]. Patients were re-allocated to the other therapy, respectively, for the second cycle of chemotherapy. We administered intravenous PALO (0.75 mg) and DEX (9.9 mg) to the PALO therapy group, and FAPR (150 mg), DEX (4.95 mg), and GRAN (3 mg) to the FAPR therapy group, on Day 1. Complete response (CR) was the primary endpoint; complete control (CC), total control (CT), and the therapy chosen by the patients for their third and following cycles of antiemetic therapy were the secondary endpoints. We evaluated CR, CC, and TC in the acute phase, in the delayed phase, and over the whole period. Results: A total of 35 patients and 70 cycles of therapy was evaluable for analysis. No significant difference was found at all evaluation points. Overall CR rates for PALO and FAPR therapy were 74 vs 69 % ( P = 0.567), CC rates 66 vs 69 % ( P = 0.521), and TC rates 46 vs 60 % ( P = 0.235), respectively. Patients also showed no clear preference for their third and following cycles of chemotherapy, choosing both regimens almost equally often (PALO 10 vs FAPR 13). Conclusions: PALO and 1-day DEX is almost equivalent to FAPR, GRAN, and DEX for MEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aims to determine the incidence of nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), under medical practice conditions and the accuracy with which physicians perceive CINV. Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients receiving MEC between April 2012 and May 2013 were included. Patients completed a diary of the intensity of nausea and number of vomiting episodes. Complete response and complete protection were assessed as secondary endpoints. Results: Of 261 patients included, 240 were evaluated. Median age was 64 years, 44.2 % were female and 11.2 % were aged less than 50 years; 95.3 % of patients received a combination of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT) antagonist + corticosteroid as antiemetic treatment. Vomiting within 5 days of chemotherapy administration occurred in 20.8 %, nausea in 42 % and significant nausea in 23.8 % of patients. An increase in the percentage of patients with significant nausea (from 9.4 to 21.7 %) and vomiting (from 9.2 to 16.5 %) was observed from the acute to the delayed phase. Complete response was 84.2 % in the acute phase, 77 % in the late phase and 68.9 % in overall period. Complete protection was 79.5 % in the acute phase, 68.8 % in the late phase and 62.4 % throughout the study period. Physicians estimated prophylaxis would be effective for 75 % of patients receiving MEC, compared with 54.1 % obtained from patients' diary. Conclusion: Despite receiving prophylactic treatment, 31 % of patients did not achieve a complete response and 38 % complete protection. In general, nausea was worse controlled than vomiting. The results also showed the late phase was worse controlled than the acute phase in all variables. Healthcare providers overestimated the effectiveness of antiemetic prophylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist palonosetron is effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC, respectively). In addition, palonosetron has been the first and, at present, the only 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to have a specific indication for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with MEC. The unique pharmacology of this antagonist is thought to partly explain its improved efficacy against delayed symptoms. Aims: To review the evidence underlying the use of palonosetron in preventing CINV. Evidence review: A recent meta-analysis consistently showed that palonosetron significantly increases the control of both emesis and nausea during the acute and delayed phases after single-day HEC or MEC. Consistent with these findings from trials that did not include an neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist, randomized controlled trials recently showed that a triple combination with palonosetron achieves significantly better control of delayed CINV, particularly delayed nausea, in patients undergoing HEC or the high-risk combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC). Evidence from randomized studies also supports palonosetron as a valuable option to reduce the total corticosteroid dose administered in patients undergoing multiple cycles of MEC or AC chemotherapy. Additional benefits of palonosetron include the lack of a warning on cardiac safety and no known clinically significant drug-drug interactions. Place in therapy and conclusion: Evidence currently available indicates that palonosetron significantly adds to the clinician's ability to effectively control CINV in patients undergoing HEC or MEC. It is recommended in the international guidelines for the prevention of CINV caused by MEC. The high safety profile and the opportunity to reduce the total corticosteroid dose with no loss in efficacy against delayed CINV should also contribute to a wider use of palonosetron in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The granisetron transdermal system (GTS) showed non-inferior efficacy to oral granisetron to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during multiday chemotherapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of GTS with that of intravenous and oral granisetron in Korean patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Patients and methods: A total of 276 patients were randomized into GTS ( n = 139, one patch on days 1-4) or control group ( n = 137, intravenous on day 1 and oral on days 2-4). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving complete response (CR) from chemotherapy initiation until 24 h after the final administration. Results: Out of 234 patients (112 in GTS and 122 in control group) included in the per protocol analysis, 97.9 % had gastrointestinal cancer and 76.9 % received 3-day chemotherapy. The GTS showed non-inferior efficacy achieving CR in 75.0 % of the patients; 74.6 % of the patients in the control group achieved CR (95 % confidence interval −10.73 to 11.55 %). The CR rate did not change after subgroup analyses by sex, age, and chemotherapy naivety and analysis per day and overall days of treatment. The GTS group showed sustained CR from day 1 to day 4. Patients' satisfaction, assessed using Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLI-E), showed no difference. Both treatments were well tolerated and safe. Conclusion: The GTS showed non-inferior efficacy to intravenous and oral granisetron. The safety, tolerability, and FLI-E scores of the GTS were comparable to those of control group. The GTS offers a convenient alternative option for relieving CINV in patients receiving MEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with anticancer treatment that can have a significant adverse impact on patient health-related quality of life and that can potentially undermine the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Traditional regimens to prevent CINV generally involved a combination of a corticosteroid plus a 5-hydroxytryptamine (5HT3) receptor antagonist (RA). In the past 10 years, antiemetic treatment has greatly advanced with the availability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) aprepitant and its prodrug fosaprepitant. NK1 RAs have a different mechanism of action in CINV than corticosteroids and 5HT3 RAs, thus their use can complement traditional antiemetic drugs and can enhance control of CINV. This review examined accumulated data regarding the safety and efficacy of aprepitant and fosaprepitant over the decade since the first regulatory approval. Data from key studies of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were explored, as were recommendations in currently available guidelines for their use. In addition, their use as antiemetic therapy in special patient populations was highlighted. Future perspectives on potential uses of aprepitant and fosaprepitant for indications other than CINV are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to investigate the usefulness of the triplet regimen comprising aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Methods: Patients with lung cancer (aged 65.8 ± 8.4 years) who received carboplatin-based MEC and those treated with cisplatin-based HEC were enrolled. The antiemetic regimen for both types of chemotherapy consisted of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone based on the May 2010 guidelines prepared by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. The incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and the use of salvage treatment were assessed. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients with a complete response (CR: no nausea and no salvage treatment) during the entire study period (5 days) after chemotherapy, during the acute phase (day 1), and during the delayed phase (days 2-5). Results: CR rates for the entire period were 86 and 71 % in patients receiving carboplatin-based and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively. CR rates were respectively 98 and 100 % in the acute phase versus 87 and 71 % in the delayed phase. Most of the patients could ingest food throughout the entire period after chemotherapy. Assessment of various risk factors for acute and delayed CINV (gender, age, prior vomiting due to antineoplastic therapy, prior experience of motion sickness, and history of drinking) revealed no significant influence of these factors on the CR rate for the entire period in patients receiving either carboplatin-based or cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Conclusion: The present triple therapy can be recommended for supporting both carboplatin-based and cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patients with gastrointestinal cancer who were receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) were switched from granisetron, a first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, to palonosetron at our hospital. In the present study, we compared effectiveness before and after switching antiemetic treatment. Methods: Among patients who were receiving MEC for gastrointestinal cancer, we prospectively observed 46 patients given granisetron and 46 given palonosetron. To allow adverse reactions to be graded in accordance with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, a questionnaire designed at our hospital was used to compare the occurrence of delayed nausea and vomiting between patients who received granisetron (GRA group) and those who received palonosetron (PAL group). Results: The incidence of delayed nausea was significantly lower in the PAL group (8.7 %, 4/46; p < 0.01) than in the GRA group (37 %, 17/46). Delayed vomiting developed in five patients (10.9 %) in the GRA group, but did not occur in the PAL group. On the basis of the results of multivariate analysis, young age, female gender, and the use of granisetron were significant risk factors for delayed nausea. Conclusion: Our survey showed that palonosetron effectively controls delayed nausea caused by MEC for gastrointestinal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palonosetron (Aloxi®, Onicit®) is a pharmacologically unique 5-HT receptor antagonist (RA) approved as a single IV injection for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy (CINV) of either moderate or highly emetogenic potential (MEC and HEC, respectively). An oral palonosetron formulation has been developed and compared to the IV formulation. Methods: In this multinational, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, dose-ranging trial, 651 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following as a single dose prior to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: oral palonosetron 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mg or IV palonosetron 0.25 mg. Patients were also randomized (1:1) to receive dexamethasone 8 mg IV or matched placebo on day 1. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue therapy) during the acute phase (0-24 h). Results: Acute CR rates were 73.5, 76.3, 74.1, and 70.4 % for all patients receiving the palonosetron 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mg oral doses, and for IV palonosetron 0.25 mg, respectively; delayed CR (24-120 h) rates were 59.4, 62.5, 60.1, and 65.4 %, and overall CR (0-120 h) rates were 53.5, 58.8, 53.2, and 59.3 %, respectively. The addition of dexamethasone improved emetic control (acute CR rate) by at least 15 % for all groups except oral palonosetron 0.25 mg, where the acute CR improvement was approximately 7 %. Adverse events were similar in nature, incidence, and intensity for all oral and IV palonosetron groups, and were the expected adverse events for 5-HT RAs (primarily headache and constipation). Conclusion: Oral palonosetron has a similar efficacy and safety profile as IV palonosetron 0.25 mg and may be the preferred formulation in certain clinical situations. Among the tested oral treatments, a palonosetron 0.50-mg oral dose has been favored for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy due to a numerical gain in efficacy without a side effect disadvantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major determinant of quality of life in cancer patients. In addition, the perceptions that oncology professionals have about CINV quite often do not coincide with reality. Antineoplastic agents and their combinations can be categorised according to their emetogenic level, and this categorisation is helpful for classifying the severity of CINV and treating it. All CINV treatment guidelines emphasise the need to administer prophylaxis to patients who receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. With the introduction of NK1 receptor antagonists, the control of acute and delayed CINV after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy schedules has improved in the great majority of patients. NK1 receptor antagonists have been demonstrated to improve the control of CINV in all risk subgroups of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy discussed during the third Perugia Consensus Conference (June 2009) sponsored by MASCC-ESMO was presented. The review considered new studies published since the second consensus conference (April 2004). Methods: An online search was used conducting PubMed and the search terms moderately, chemotherapy, and emesis with a restriction to papers in English. Results: Overall, nine randomized controlled studies were included: four evaluating NK1 receptor antagonists, one palonosetron, and four dopamine receptor antagonists. Conclusions: In patients receiving a combination of anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide treated with a combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT receptor antagonist and dexamethasone to prevent acute nausea and vomiting, aprepitant is suggested to prevent delayed emesis. In patients who do not receive aprepitant for the prophylaxis for acute emesis and in which palonosetron is recommended, a multiday oral dexamethasone is the preferred treatment for the prevention of delayed emesis. Levels of evidence and of consensus for both recommendations are moderate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Aprepitant was shown previously to be effective for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in breast cancer patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimen. This study assessed aprepitant in patients receiving a broad range of MEC regimens with a variety of tumor types. Methods This phase III, randomized, gender-stratified, double-blind trial enrolled patients with confirmed malignancies, naïve to MEC or highly emetogenic chemotherapy, who were scheduled to receive a single dose of at least one MEC agent. Patients received an aprepitant triple-therapy regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone) or a control regimen (ondansetron and dexamethasone) administered orally. Primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were proportions of patients with no vomiting and complete response (no vomiting and no rescue medication), respectively, during the 120 h post-chemotherapy. Results Of 848 randomized patients, 77% were female, and 52% received non-AC-based antineoplastic regimens. Significantly, more patients in the aprepitant group achieved no vomiting and complete response, regardless of whether they received AC or non-AC regimens, in the 120 h after chemotherapy. Overall, the incidences of adverse events were generally similar in the aprepitant (62.8%) and control groups (67.2%). Conclusions The aprepitant regimen provided superior efficacy in the treatment of CINV in a broad range of patients receiving MEC (non-AC or AC) in both no vomiting and complete response endpoints. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated. These results show the benefit of including aprepitant as part of the standard antiemetic regimen for cancer patients receiving MEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This prospective study was designed to compare the efficacy of ondansetron with granisetron in terms of complete emesis control and time spent in an ambulatory care setting in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing moderately emetogenic cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy.The costs for both treatments are also examined. A total of 33 children (mean age: 7.8 ± 4.9 year) were studied during 66 chemotherapy cycles. Analysis was based on 33 courses of a single oral dose of granisetron and 33 courses of ondansetron incorporating 2 intravenous doses of ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg followed by 1 dose of the same dosage orally. There was no significant difference between the 2 treatments in terms of overall efficacy (McNemar's chi-square test). Twenty of 33 patients (60.6%) receiving granisetron and 15 of 33 patients (45.5%) receiving ondansetron experienced no emesis 24 h after chemotherapy (p = .227). Boys experienced greater rates of vomiting than did girls despite antiemetic treatment; however, no apparent reason for the gender discrepancy was noted. Both antiemetic regimens have similar antiemetic efficacy for treating the moderately emetogenic effects associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. It is possible that the granisetron regimen may be preferable because it is simpler to administer and more cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rates of delayed nausea and vomiting by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with previous experience of acute emesis are usually quite high. This is a pilot study aiming to evaluate the safety of a new antiemetic schedule to prevent delayed emesis in this subset of patients. During 5 consecutive cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, we evaluated 50 patients (15 males) who experienced acute emesis in the first cycle of treatment. The regimen for prevention of delayed emesis consisted of daily tropisetron (5 mg orally from d 2 to d 6 of each chemotherapeutic cycle) associated to ACTH-Depot (1 mg intramuscularly 24 and 68 h after the initiation of chemotherapy). In 77% of chemotherapy cycles, there was a total elimination of nausea and vomiting, whereas in the remaining 23% of cycles, there was a major response defined as < or = 2 vomiting episodes per cycle or nausea grade 1 according to the WHO. The efficacy of the antiemetic regimen persisted during the entire treatment program without the appearance of toxic effects. The proposed antiemetic regimen is highly active in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting episodes in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Moreover, no toxic effects were observed. These promising results require confirmation by a randomized trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 1981, when highdose intravenous metoclopramide was demonstrated to be efficacious, slow but constant improvement in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis has been achieved. Today, a combination of a serotonin receptor 3 (5-HT) antagonist plus dexamethasone can be considered the most efficacious treatment for the prevention of emesis induced by cisplatin and by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Which 5-HT3receptor antagonist should be used? Preclinical differences among 5-HT3receptor antagonists have been reported with regard to selectivity of receptor binding, potency, dose response, and duration of action. Twelve comparative studies among 5-HTreceptor antagonists have been carried out. Unfortunately, all these trials have some important shortcomings (patient population not large enough to show small but clinically important differences; not blinded studies; no association with steroids to maximize treatment efficacy) and, therefore, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Very recently three large, well-conducted double-blind comparative studies have been published. All three showed that 5-HT3receptor antagonists have almost identical antiemetic efficacy and tolerability. Therefore, the choice among the 5-HTreceptor antagonists should be based only on the acquisition cost of the prescribed dose in each country for each compound. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy induces nausea and vomiting in a significant number of cancer patients across the world each day. Unfortunately patients tend to be at home and away from the specialist oncology centres when the symptoms are at their worst. This leads to a disconnect between what health professionals predict will happen to patients and what patients actually experience, especially in the delayed phase of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) (Grunberg, 2004). Following feedback from a European forum (see preceding article, p. 22-8) that CINV is still poorly managed, the UK Oncology Nursing Society (UKONS) is proposing a nation-wide, multi-site audit of the patient-reported CINV experience by reviewing specially-designed CINV diaries. Each cycle of treatment will be recorded and side effects closely monitored for several days after treatment. Furthermore, the audit will assess the clinical prescribing habits, use of international CINV guidelines and variations in local protocols for these patients. An online survey will be undertaken by the clinical teams on what they predict a group of chemotherapy patients will experience by way of CINV. This audit will then be compared to the reported side effects experienced by the patients. It is proposed that this audit will provide evidence of how NHS and private oncology teams manage CINV within the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aprepitant prevents chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in carboplatin-containing chemotherapy. However, it is unknown whether aprepitant salvage therapy after the development of emesis is as effective as adding prophylactic aprepitant to doublet therapy with dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist from the first cycle of chemotherapy. To compare the antiemetic efficacy of aprepitant between salvage and prophylactic administration in the second cycle of carboplatin-containing chemotherapy, twenty-two NSCLC patients who developed CINV in the first cycle of carboplatin-containing therapy without aprepitant (salvage group) and 44 patients who received aprepitant (prophylaxis group) were extracted from the pooled data of two clinical trials, with adjustment for age, sex, and chemotherapeutic regimen as co-variables using propensity score matching. In the second cycle of chemotherapy, both groups received aprepitant, and the rate of antiemetic complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) at 5 days after chemotherapy was compared. The prophylaxis group demonstrated a significantly better overall complete response rate (88.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 75.4-96.2) compared with that of observed for the salvage group (68.2%; 95% CI 45.1-86.1, p = 0.042). The prophylaxis group also demonstrated a significantly lower proportion of any-grade nausea (43.2%) and appetite loss (43.2%) than the salvage group (72.7%, p = 0.036 and 77.3%, p = 0.010, respectively). Adding aprepitant to doublet therapy from the first cycle of carboplatin-containing chemotherapy may be more effective than salvage use of aprepitant after the development of CINV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]