Impact of emesis on clinical and economic outcomes of cancer therapy with highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a retrospective analysis of three clinical trials

Evaluation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine-a case series

PURPOSE

Although lomustine has been used as a chemotherapeutic agent for decades, no recommendation on appropriate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is available. As CINV is considered one of the most bothersome side effects of chemotherapy, adequate prophylaxis is of relevance to improve quality of life during cancer treatment. The aim of this retrospective case series was to report the incidence and severity of CINV in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine and to formulate recommendations for appropriate CINV prophylaxis.

METHODS

Pediatric patients treated with lomustine for high-grade glioma according to the ACNS 0423 protocol were identified retrospectively. Two researchers independently reviewed and classified complaints of CINV and administered CINV prophylaxis. Treatment details, tumor localization, and response to therapy were systematically extracted from the patients' files.

RESULTS

Seventeen children aged 8-18 years received a median of four cycles of lomustine. CINV complaints and administered prophylaxis were evaluable in all patients. Moderate or severe CINV was observed in 13/17 (76%) patients. Administered prophylactic CINV regimens varied from no prophylaxis to triple-agent combinations.

CONCLUSION

In this case series, we identified lomustine as a highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent. According to the current guidelines, CINV prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in combination with dexamethasone and (fos)aprepitant is recommended.

Evaluation of Current Antiemetic Therapy Response in Patients Undergoing MEC or HEC Regimens in Portugal

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) negatively impact cancer patients' quality of life and treatment outcomes. This study evaluated the achievement of complete response to CINV prophylaxis during the first five days after chemotherapy in adult outpatient cancer clinics with solid malignant tumours receiving Moderate or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) in Portugal. During the study, patients completed three evaluations, and nausea severity and CINV impact on patients' daily life was assessed. A complete response (no emetic episodes, no use of rescue antiemetic medication, and no more than mild nausea) was observed in 72% of the cycles (N = 161) throughout the five days after chemotherapy. Amongst the patient population, 25% classified their CINV episodes as severe. Though more than half of the patients achieved a complete response, suggesting that a therapeutic effort is being made to minimise this side effect, the overall scenario is barely optimistic. Significantly, new CINV-control measures in MEC/HEC patients should be adopted, specifically avoiding the single use of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 and raising awareness of using NK1-RAs. Thus, it is critical to improve CINV prophylactic treatment and implement practical international antiemetic guidelines in Portuguese clinical practice, envisaging the improvement of supportive care for cancer patients.

Prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients: A clinical practice guideline

This clinical practice guideline provides recommendations for preventing acute and delayed phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in pediatric patients. The recommendations are based on two systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions to prevent (1) acute phase CINV and (2) delayed phase CINV. Recommendations for acute phase and delayed phase CINV prophylaxis are made for patients receiving chemotherapy of varying emetogenicity, as well as for patients not able to receive dexamethasone or a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist. Evidence gaps, including antiemetic safety and optimal dosing, were identified.

Interventions for the prevention of acute phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adult and pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To identify effective and safe interventions to prevent acute phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult and pediatric patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials evaluating interventions to prevent acute CINV. Outcomes assessed were complete chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control, complete chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) control, complete CINV control, and discontinuation of antiemetics due to adverse effects.

RESULTS

The search identified 65,172 citations; 744 were evaluated at full-text, and 295 (25 pediatric) met eligibility criteria. In patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), complete CIV (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.44) and CIN (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.62) control improved when olanzapine was added. The addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) to a corticosteroid plus a serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) also improved complete CIV (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.08-1.14) and CIN (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.08) control. Compared to granisetron/ondansetron, palonosetron provided improved complete CIV control when the 5HT3RA was given alone or when combined with dexamethasone. In patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), dexamethasone plus a 5HT3RA improved complete CIV control compared to a 5HT3RA alone (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21-1.39). Only a single meta-analysis evaluating the safety outcome was possible.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients receiving HEC, various antiemetic regimens improved CIV and CIN control. For patients receiving MEC, administration of a 5HT3RA plus dexamethasone improved CIV control. Analysis of antiemetic safety was constrained by lack of data.

Oral versus intravenous palonosetron in Chinese cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: A non-inferiority phase III trial

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.

Expert Consensus on Effective Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: An Indian Perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and feared side effects in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Scientific evidence proves its detrimental impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL), treatment compliance, and overall healthcare cost. Despite the CINV-management landscape witnessing a radical shift with the introduction of novel, receptor-targeting antiemetic agents, this side effect remains a chink in the armor of a treating oncologist. Though global guidelines acknowledge patient-specific risk factors and chemotherapeutic agent emetogenic potential in CINV control, a "one-fit-for-all" approach cannot be followed across all geographies. Hence, in a pioneering attempt, India-based oncologists conveyed easily implementable, region-specific, consensus-based statements on CINV prevention and management. These statements resulted from integrating the analysis of scientific evidence and guidelines on CINV by the experts, with their clinical experience. The statements will strengthen decision-making abilities of Indian oncologists/clinicians and help in achieving consistency in CINV prevention and management in the country. Furthermore, this document shall lay the foundation for developing robust Indian guidelines for CINV prevention and control.

A phase II randomised study to evaluate the efficacy of aprepitant plus palonosetron for preventing delayed-phase CINV associated with TC therapy in gynaecological cancer

AIM

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequently encountered side effects of cancer treatment. Severe CINV can lead patients to refuse chemotherapy, which ultimately affects cancer outcomes. The development of fairly new antiemetic agents, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists, palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists and aprepitant has reduced the risk and incidence of CINV. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of aprepitant plus palonosetron against palonosetron for CINV in patients receiving moderately emetic cancer chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin combination [TC] therapy).

METHODS

Between November 2010 and March 2014, 78 patients with gynecological cancer treated with TC therapy were randomized into two groups: an aprepitant group (administered aprepitant, dexamethasone and palonosetron) and a control group (administered dexamethasone and palonosetron). The primary study endpoint was complete response, defined as the complete absence of emetic events in the delayed phase.

RESULTS

The complete response rate in the delayed phase differed significantly between the two groups, with 82% in the aprepitant group and 97% in the control group (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

The combination of aprepitant and palonosetron appears to be of greater efficacy than palonosetron alone for the prevention of delayed-phase CINV induced by TC therapy.

The Effect of a Standardized Ginger Extract on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea-Related Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Moderately or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Double Blind, Randomized, Placebo Controlled Trial

Ginger supplementation could be an effective adjuvant treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN). The aim of this clinical trial was to address significant methodological limitations in previous trials. Patients (N = 51) were randomly allocated to receive either 1.2 g of standardised ginger extract or placebo per day, in addition to standard anti-emetic therapy, during the first three cycles of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was CIN-related quality of life (QoL) measured with the Functional Living Index- Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included acute and delayed nausea, vomiting, and retching as well as cancer-related fatigue, nutritional status, and CIN and vomiting-specific prognostic factors. Over three consecutive chemotherapy cycles, nausea was more prevalent than vomiting (47% vs. 12%). In chemotherapy Cycle 1, intervention participants reported significantly better QoL related to CIN (p = 0.029), chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-related QoL (p = 0.043), global QoL (p = 0.015) and less fatigue (p = 0.006) than placebo participants. There were no significant results in Cycle 2. In Cycle 3, global QoL (p = 0.040) and fatigue (p = 0.013) were significantly better in the intervention group compared to placebo. This trial suggests adjuvant ginger supplementation is associated with better chemotherapy-induced nausea-related quality of life and less cancer-related fatigue, with no difference in adverse effects compared to placebo.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in 190 colorectal cancer patients: a prospective registration study by the CINV study group of Japan

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy is an indispensable therapeutic approach for colorectal cancer both in the adjuvant and metastatic setting. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most crucial adverse events, many aspects of CINV in patients with colorectal cancer remain unclear.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed the data of 190 colorectal cancer patients scheduled for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy.

RESULTS

All 190 patients received MEC and 99% of patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute CINV was well controlled. 13 (6.8%) patients suffered from acute nausea and 4 (2.1%) experienced acute vomiting, whereas the prevalence of delayed CINV was relatively high. Delayed nausea occurred in 71 (37.4%) patients and delayed vomiting in 24 (12.6%). History of motion sickness was a significant independent risk factor for delayed nausea (Odd ratio 3.89, 95% confidence interval 1.49-10.19, p = 0.0056).

CONCLUSIONS

The compliance with CINV guidelines in colorectal cancer chemotherapy was quite high and led to good control of chemotherapy-induced vomiting in Japan. However, the incidence of delayed nausea remained high in patients receiving MEC.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is less controlled at delayed phase in patients with esophageal cancer: a prospective registration study by the CINV Study Group of Japan

Chemotherapy is an indispensable therapeutic approach for esophageal cancer. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most crucial adverse events, the current state of CINV in patients with esophageal cancer remains unclear. This multicenter prospective observational study analyzed data for 192 patents with esophageal cancer who underwent moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The patients recorded their CINV incidence and severity daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy, using visual analog scales (VAS). Of the 192 patients, 181 received HEC including cisplatin, and 11 patients received MEC including nedaplatin. Approximately 81% of HEC and 82% of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Although CINV was controlled relatively well in the early phase (days 1-4), it was not fully controlled in late phase (days 5-7) for both the HEC and MEC groups. Female sex was a major risk factor for delayed vomiting (P=0.034). Multivariate logistic regression analysis for VAS revealed that motion sickness, age, and use of other antiemetics were risk factors for delayed nausea. Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed CINV in both HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will help develop personalized treatments for CINV. In the clinical setting for esophageal cancer, regimens that include nedaplatin might need to be treated as HEC.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Narrative Review to Inform Dietetics Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common symptoms experienced by patients with cancer that influence nutrition. They exert a detrimental effect on dietary intake, risk of malnutrition, and quality of life. Whereas CINV are primarily managed with medication, nutrition and dietetics practitioners play an important role in the management of CINV-related complications such as reduced dietary intake. This review discusses the burden of nausea and vomiting that patients with cancer can experience, including the effect on quality of life, nutritional status, and treatment outcomes. Implications for dietetics practice include the need to explore the nature of reported symptoms, identify predisposing risk factors, and to consider the use of a variety of interventions that are individualized to a patient's symptoms. There are little clinical data regarding effective dietetic interventions for nausea and vomiting. In summary, this review discusses dietetics-related issues surrounding CINV, including the pathophysiology, risk factors, prevalence, and both pharmacologic and dietetic treatment options.

Testing the effectiveness of antiemetic guidelines: results of a prospective registry by the CINV Study Group of Japan

BACKGROUND

Many cancer patients suffer from the common side effect of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Guidelines recommend a combination of two prophylactic antiemetics for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and three for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and certain MEC regimens.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, observational study analyzed data for 1,910 patients in Japan scheduled for MEC or HEC. Use of antiemetic prophylaxis in relation to type of chemotherapy, incidences of and risk factors for nausea, vomiting, and acute versus delayed CINV, and estimated incidence of CINV by staff were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and multivariate logistic regression. The patients recorded the incidence of CINV and severity of nausea by visual analogue scales daily for 7 days after receiving chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 240 (20.1 %) HEC and 476 MEC patients (66.6 %) received 2 antiemetics, compared with 883 (73.9 %) and 200 (28.0 %), respectively, who received 3 antiemetics. Approximately 74 % of HEC and 95 % of MEC patients received antiemetic therapy in compliance with guidelines. Acute nausea and vomiting were well controlled, but high incidences of delayed nausea occurred in both HEC and MEC patients. Delayed vomiting (p < 0.0001) was significantly less frequent in patients receiving three compared with 2 antiemetics. Female sex was a major risk factor for CINV. Medical staff tended to overestimate the incidence of CINV. Among HEC regimens, the incidence of CINV and the degree of nausea on day 1 of anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination therapy were higher than with a cisplatin-based regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines effectively controls vomiting but is less effective against delayed nausea in HEC and MEC patients. Identification of individual risk factors, such as female sex, will assist in the development of personalized treatments for CINV. More intensive antiemetic therapy or a different modality of prophylaxis should be considered for the control of acute CINV in an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide regimen.

Efficacy of a triple antiemetic regimen with aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: effects of gender, age, and region

OBJECTIVE

To determine the variability in treatment responses to antiemetic therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone vs ondansetron and dexamethasone plus aprepitant) given with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Post hoc subgroup analysis of data from a phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical trial evaluated whether the efficacy of aprepitant triple therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone plus aprepitant) versus control (ondansetron and dexamethasone) varies by gender, age, or region in 848 men and women ≥18 years old with histologically confirmed malignancies and who were naïve to moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents. Endpoints compared were the incidences of no vomiting, complete response, and no use of rescue therapy, all during the overall period (0-120 h).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Regardless of age, gender, or region, the aprepitant regimen provided better control for the no-vomiting and complete-response (no vomiting, no rescue therapy) endpoints.

RESULTS

The aprepitant regimen provided better control for the no-vomiting and complete-response (no vomiting, no rescue therapy) endpoints. Overall response rates were higher in men and in older (≥55 y) patients, but treatment differences were greater among women and younger patients, known to be at increased chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk. Aprepitant showed a benefit versus control across regions, although the between-treatment difference appeared to be smaller for patients in Central/South America versus North America or international regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we acknowledge that subset numbers in this post hoc analysis may be too small to allow definitive conclusions, the data suggest that aprepitant triple therapy provides a benefit over control therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC)- or non-AC-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy across age, gender, and region. (Original trial results available at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00337727.).

Feasibility of using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool for assessment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been shown to adversely impact patient anxiety, quality of life, treatment adherence, and use of health care resources. CINV control still remains a challenge, and lack of effective communication between the patient and clinician has been highlighted in the literature as the main barrier to optimal control. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) has developed a tool (MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT)) to improve assessment and subsequent management of CINV by enhancing communication between patients and their clinicians. This study assessed the feasibility of using the MAT in patients at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre. The secondary objective was to describe the incidence of CINV as identified by the tool.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study involved a prospective survey using the MAT in patients receiving intravenous chemotherapy. Subjects completed the MAT twice post-chemotherapy regarding CINV symptoms and returned it at their next clinic appointment. Participants were also surveyed to evaluate feasibility with regard to using the MAT.

RESULTS

Of the 50 patients recruited, 56% returned surveys. The majority of patients reported that the MAT facilitated communication with their clinician, particularly those who had experienced CINV. Fifty-four percent of patients who returned the MAT reported CINV; however, less than half of them had received American Society of Clinical Oncology-recommended antiemetic regimens. Only four patients with CINV had antiemetic changes made for subsequent cycles.

CONCLUSION

The MAT is a feasible tool which can improve communication of CINV symptoms between patients and clinicians, a foundational step toward improving CINV management.

Assessing patient adherence to a complementary medicine treatment regimen in an integrative supportive care setting

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cancer are frequently turning to complementary medicine (CM), often with the goal of improving quality of life outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to assess the adherence of patients referred by oncology practitioners to a CM consultation and treatment program.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective registry protocol-based, preference study was conducted at a conventional oncology department. Patients undergoing chemotherapy were referred by participating oncology practitioners to a CM-trained integrative physician (IP) for consultation. Adherence to the integrative care (AIC) program was defined as attendance by patients at ≥4 CM treatment sessions, with an interval of no more than 30 days between each session.

RESULTS

A total of 282 patients were referred by the study health-care professionals (HCPs), of whom 243 (85.8%) were eventually seen by the study IP. Of these, 160 were found to be adherent to the treatment plan (AIC group), and 83 were nonadherent (non-AIC group). No significant differences were found between the two groups with respect to demographic characteristics, medical history, site of malignancy and/or recurrence, chemotherapy regimen, or severity of symptoms at baseline. The AIC group reported significantly greater rates of CM use for noncancer-related indications than the non-AIC group (EXP(B)=2.174, 95% confidence interval (C.I.)=1.1–4.295, p =0.025). Patients in the non-AIC group were referred more frequently by their HCP for gastrointestinal concerns than those in the AIC group (p =0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Previous use of CM for noncancer-related outcomes was found to be predictive of patient adherence to a CM treatment regimen provided within conventional oncology service.

Phase II trial of carboplatin/docetaxel in patients with resected NSCLC

AIM: To investigate the development of a safer chemotherapeutic regimen with better compliance, a total of 67 patients were enrolled as a single arm in a two-stage multi-center phase II study.

METHODS: The patients received chemotherapy with carboplatin (CBDCA) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 5, and docetaxel (DTX) at 60 mg/m² tri-weekly for three cycles after surgery. The primary endpoint of this study was compliance, while the secondary endpoints were the adverse events (AE) and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were treated in this study arm. The patients were 43 males and 18 females, with a median age of 64.6 years. Fifty-one patients (83.6%) completed all three cycles of therapy. The presence of Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was noted in 25% and 66% of the patients, respectively. The non-hematological AE were less frequently reported, and no treatment-related death was registered. The two-year RFS and OS rates of the 61 patients were 69.8% and 88.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: A tri-weekly schedule of CBDCA and DTX as adjuvant chemotherapy showed a favorable feasibility.

Palonosetron exhibits higher total control rate compared to first-generation serotonin antagonists and improves appetite in delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

In order to ensure the continuity of chemotherapy, it is crucial to provide appropriate supportive care to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The frequency of CINV is greatly affected by the type and combination of chemotherapy employed, which requires further investigation. With the use of patient diaries, a prospective study on the efficacy of antiemetic regimens for nausea and vomiting was conducted in 103 patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in the Ambulatory Therapy Center of our institution between August, 2010 and March, 2011. In this study, the efficacy of palonosetron in the delayed phase was affirmed. On days 4 and 5, in particular, palonosetron exhibited a significantly higher efficacy compared to that of other conventional serotonin (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists (5-HT₃RAs). When the effects of chemotherapy on food intake were assessed by switching granisetron to palonosetron, an improvement in appetite was observed in one-quarter of the cases in the delayed phase. In addition, palonosetron has not been associated with any severe adverse drug reactions. It was therefore suggested that the use of palonosetron be recommended as a 5-HT₃RA. In conclusion, our data suggested that palonosetron is effective and may be used as a 5-HT₃RA, since it is crucial that we take adequate measures against CINV in order to maintain the patients' quality of life and to develop antiemetic regimens that ensure the continuity of chemotherapy without dose reduction.

Risk factors at pretreatment predicting treatment-induced nausea and vomiting in Australian cancer patients: a prospective, longitudinal, observational study

PURPOSE

Despite significant advances in antiemetic management, almost 50% of cancer patients still experience nausea and vomiting during treatment. The goal of antiemetic therapy is complete prevention of treatment-induced nausea and/or vomiting (TINV); however, realisation of this goal remains elusive, thus supplementary strategies identifying patients at high risk must be employed in the interim. Consequently, we examined TINV incidence and its risk factors, including patient, clinical and pretreatment quality of life (QOL)/psychological factors.

METHODS

Two hundred newly diagnosed cancer patients beginning combined treatment participated in this prospective, longitudinal, observational study. QOL (including TINV), psychological adjustment, and patient/clinical characteristics were examined at pretreatment, on-treatment (8 weeks ± 1 week) and post-treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, 62% of patients experienced TINV, with TIN incidence (60%) doubling that of TIV (27%). Eight independent risk factors predicted 73% of TIN incidence: high premorbid/anticipatory NV, moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy (M/HEC), longer treatment (>3 months), female gender, surgery prior to adjuvant chemotherapy ± radiotherapy, private health insurance and low emotional functioning (pretreatment). Six independent risk factors predicted 77% of TIV incidence: premorbid/anticipatory vomiting, M/HEC, female gender, cancer resection and low role functioning (pretreatment).

CONCLUSIONS

TINV still represents a very major concern for patients. Several pretreatment risk factors for the development of TIN and TIV, respectively, were identified. Patients about to undergo cancer treatment, particularly combined treatment involving emetogenic chemotherapy and surgery, should be screened for these factors with a view to modifying standard pretreatment/maintenance antiemetic therapy. Furthermore, and consistent with recent research, it is recommended that more comprehensive interventions combining antiemetics with other effective pharmacological (e.g. anxiolytics) and non-pharmacological approaches (e.g. acupuncture, relaxation techniques) be considered by clinicians in attempts to improve control of TIN and TIV (and overall QOL) for their patients. In this way, optimal holistic care will be ensured for cancer patients by clinicians providing conventional oncology treatment.

Phase III trial of casopitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this phase III trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regimens containing casopitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the first cycle in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Predominantly female patients (98%) diagnosed with breast cancer (96%) who were chemotherapy-naïve and scheduled to receive an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) -based regimen were enrolled onto this multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial. All patients received dexamethasone 8 mg intravenously (IV) on day 1 and oral ondansetron 8 mg twice daily on days 1 to 3. Patients were randomly assigned to a control arm (placebo), a single oral dose casopitant arm (150 mg orally [PO] on day 1), a 3-day oral casopitant arm (150 mg PO on day 1 plus 50 mg PO on days 2 to 3), or a 3-day IV/oral casopitant arm (90 mg IV on day 1 plus 50 mg PO on days 2 to 3). The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no vomiting/retching or rescue medications) in the first 120 hours after the initiation of MEC.

RESULTS

A significantly greater proportion of patients in the single-dose oral casopitant arm, 3-day oral casopitant arm, and 3-day IV/oral casopitant arm achieved complete response (73%, 73%, and 74%, respectively) versus control (59%; P < .0001). The study did not demonstrate a reduced proportion of patients with nausea or significant nausea in those receiving casopitant. Adverse events were balanced among study arms.

CONCLUSION

All casopitant regimens studied were more effective than the control regimen. Casopitant was generally well tolerated.

Impact of casopitant, a novel NK-1 antagonist, on the pharmacokinetics of ondansetron and dexamethasone

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacokinetic interactions between casopitant (a substrate and weak to moderate inhibitor of CYP3A), dexamethasone (a substrate and weak inducer of CYP3A), and ondansetron (a mixed CYP substrate) were evaluated in a two-part, three-period, single-sequence study in two groups of healthy subjects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Part 1: subjects received oral casopitant (regimen A); oral dexamethasone and IV ondansetron (regimen B); and oral casopitant, a reduced dose of oral dexamethasone, and IV ondansetron (regimen C). Part 2: subjects received oral casopitant (regimen D); IV dexamethasone and oral ondansetron (regimen E); and oral casopitant, IV dexamethasone, and oral ondansetron (regimen F). Each regimen was separated by 14 days.

RESULTS

Casopitant AUC in regimen C was increased 28% on day 1 but decreased 34% on day 3 compared to casopitant alone in regimen A. When given with casopitant and ondansetron in regimen C, dexamethasone AUC was 17% lower on day 1, but similar on day 3, compared to regimen B (representing dose-normalized increases in exposure of 39% and 108%, respectively). Ondansetron exposure was equivalent in regimens B and C. Casopitant AUC in regimen F was similar to regimen D on days 1 and 3. Dexamethasone AUC increased 21% when given with oral casopitant and oral ondansetron (regimen F compared to regimen E). Ondansetron exposure was equivalent in regimens E and F.

CONCLUSION

When repeat-dose oral dexamethasone is to be coadministered with oral casopitant, a reduction in dexamethasone dose may be considered; however, no change in casopitant dose is required. Ondansetron exposure was not affected by coadministration with casopitant.

Putting evidence into practice: evidence-based interventions to prevent, manage, and treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to have a considerable effect on the physical and psychological well-being of patients with cancer, despite significant advances in antiemetic drugs since the 1990s. This article reviews and summarizes past and current empirical evidence related to interventions for CINV. A resource that summarizes evidence-based interventions for CINV is critical for effective management of this distressing symptom. Pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions are appraised. Finally, gaps in the literature and opportunities for research, education, and practice changes are discussed.