Palonosetron in combination with 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial

Low dose of dexamethasone combined with netupitant and palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients induced by anthracycline drugs

BACKGROUND

To study the effects of various courses of dexamethasone (DEX) combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RA) and NK-1 RA in suppressing high-grade nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy regimens (AC or EC) in breast cancer (BC) patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed with 252 BC patients who received AC between January, 2019 and June, 2022 in our hospital. Patients were randomly separated into control Group (N = 130) who received DEX 12 mg on day 1 and 8 mg per dose on day 2-4 and observation group (N = 122) treated with DEX 5 mg per dose on days 1-4. The response was monitored. Primary study endpoint was complete resolution (CR) of patients nausea or vomiting; secondary study endpoints included acute CR and delayed CR; and complete control (CC), acute CC, delayed CC, and safety.

RESULTS

All patients underwent six rounds of chemotherapy, and no difference was found in the clinical data. CR of acute/delayed phase was (94.3%/88.5%, P > 0.05), (89.3%/90.8%, P > 0.05); total CR was (80.3%/81.5%, P > 0.05); CC was (56.6%/59.2%, P > 0.05), (64.8%/67.7%, P > 0.05); total CR was (48.4%/53.1%, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The preventive antiemetic effects of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron combined with DEX 5 mg per dose on days 1-4, can be similar to DEX 12 mg on day 1 and 8 mg per dose on days 2-4, low-dose hormone with better safety, which is beneficial.

Efficacy and safety of dexamethasone sparing for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023 from Japan Society of Clinical Oncology

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), is more effective than first-generation 5-HT3RA. Several studies have investigated whether dexamethasone (DEX), when combined with palonosetron as a 5-HT3RA, can be spared in the delayed phase after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine which between 1- and 3-day DEX administration, when combined with palonosetron, is more useful in patients receiving MEC.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2020. We included studies that compared the efficacy of 1- and 3-day DEX administration in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with MEC. Outcomes were "prevention of vomiting (complete response rate and no vomiting rate)," "prevention of nausea" (complete control rate, total control rate, no nausea rate, and no clinically significant nausea rate)" in the delayed phase, "prevention of blood glucose level elevation," and "prevention of osteoporosis."

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in this systematic review. The no vomiting rate was significantly higher in the 3-day DEX group than in the 1-day DEX group. However, the other efficacy items did not significantly differ between the two groups. Meanwhile, insufficient evidence was obtained for "prevention of blood glucose level elevation" and "prevention of osteoporosis."

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in most antiemetic effects were found between 1- and 3-day DEX administration. Thus, DEX administration could be shortened from 3 days to 1 day when used in combination with palonosetron.

Multi-day vs single-day dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, several randomized controlled trials have compared single-day dexamethasone (dexamethasone-sparing) regimens to the current standard multi-day dexamethasone antiemetic regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone-sparing regimens to standard multi-day dexamethasone, used for the prophylaxis of CINV.

METHODS

Ovid Medline and Embase were searched from database inception to March 2024. Studies were included if they reported on randomized controlled trials of adult cancer patients receiving different scheduling of dexamethasone, for the endpoints of complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication. Safety was also assessed. Meta-analysis, leave-one-out meta-analysis, and cumulative meta-analysis were conducted to generate summary effect estimates and assess the influence of single trials on the summary effect estimate.

RESULTS

Ten trials reporting on 2234 patients were included. Dexamethasone-sparing regimens were found to be no different to control arm in the acute (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08), delayed (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05) and overall phases (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06) for complete response. There was likewise no difference for complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication. Safety profile was similar. There was no concern for bias in the published literature. No difference was found between studies reporting on anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

CONCLUSION

In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, dexamethasone-sparing regimens were found to be no different to current multi-day regimens with respect to efficacy and safety for MEC and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based regimens. Clinicians and future guidelines should strongly consider greater adoption and endorsement of dexamethasone-sparing regimens.

Dexamethasone-sparing strategies in anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy with a focus on 5-HT3 receptor antagonists: a network meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy in the treatment of breast cancer with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy when combined with first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 RAs is unclear. This is attributable to a lack of evidence from direct comparison of multiple doses of DEX to a single dose of DEX in combination with first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy. Our goal was to clarify the impact of dexamethasone-sparing strategies that involve both first-generation 5-HT3 RAs and palonosetron when combined with neurokinin-1 RAs, using a network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods

A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline for articles published up to July 4, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of antiemetic regimens which combined 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, with or without neurokinin-1 RAs, for the initial dose in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP).

Results

The difference in the proportion of patients achieving CR-DP between multiple and single doses of dexamethasone was 0.1% (95%CI: -12.4 to 12.5) with palonosetron and neurokinin-1 RAs, compared to 5.3% (95%CI: -13.4 to 23.0) with a single dose of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Additionally, the difference was 12.7% (95% CI: -2.8 to 28.2) when comparing palonosetron against first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in combination with a single dose of dexamethasone and neurokinin-1 RAs.

Conclusion

Palonosetron is recommended rather than a single dose of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in dexamethasone-sparing strategies for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy.

Dexamethasone-free antiemetic strategy for highly emetogenic chemotherapy: safety and efficacy-pilot study

OBJECTIVES

Dexamethasone sparing strategies have shown success. The feasibility of a dexamethasone-free antiemetic strategy remains undetermined. A prospective, single-arm, pilot study was planned to determine the efficacy of an olanzapine-based, dexamethasone-free, three-drug antiemetic regimen.

METHODS

Chemotherapy naïve, adult patients (≥18 years) who received ondansetron, aprepitant and olanzapine during the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete response (CR: no vomiting and no use of rescue medications) during the overall period (0-120 hours).

RESULTS

Out of the total of 101 patients enrolled, most were women (82%) and received anthracycline cyclophosphamide (73%) combination therapy. The rate of CR for the overall period was 65% (95% CI 55.2% to 74.5%). The rate of CR for the acute and delayed period was 79% (95% CI 70% to 86.7%) and 76% (95% CI 66.7% to 84.1%). The rate of nausea control rates for the acute, delayed and overall periods were 34%, 29% and 24%, respectively. The grade I, II and III sedation rates over the 5 days were 8%, 5% and 1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The dexamethasone-free antiemetic strategy showed modest efficacy with low incidence of clinically significant somnolence. There is a need to prospectively investigate the role of dexamethasone in the era of newer potent antiemetics in a randomised fashion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2021/07/034813.

Dexamethasone-Free Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Double-Blind, Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial (CINV POD study)

PURPOSE

The effectiveness of a dexamethasone (DEX)-free regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is not known.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, phase III trial designed to show the noninferiority of a DEX-free regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant [OPF]) compared with the DEX-containing regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and DEX [OPD]). Chemotherapy-naïve patients age 18-80 years receiving single-day HEC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either the OPD regimen or the OPF regimen. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates for vomiting during the overall period (start of chemotherapy to 120 hours). Secondary objectives included CR for vomiting during the acute period (0-24 hours) and delayed period (24-120 hours), CR for nausea, and comparison of toxicities and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-six patients received the study interventions, 174 in the OPD arm and 172 in the OPF arm. The DEX-free OPF arm had significantly higher CR rates for vomiting compared with the DEX-containing OPD arm in acute (94.7% v 85.6%; P < .004), delayed (81.9% v 50.5%; P < .001), and overall (79.6% v 48.8%; P < .001) periods. For nausea, CR rates in the OPF arm were higher in delayed (53.4% v 39.6%; P = .009) and overall (50.5% v 39.1%; P = .031) periods but not in the acute period (77.9% v 81.6%; P = .39). Fatigue (P = .009) and drowsiness (P = .002) were more in the OPF arm in the acute period and insomnia (P < .001) in the OPD arm in the overall period.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that a DEX-free OPF regimen is efficacious and should be considered a standard option for acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis for HEC.

Palonosetron for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common adverse events in patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), has demonstrated non-inferiority to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs for CINV in pediatric patients. Although palonosetron has a long half-life and prolonged antiemetic action, its efficacy against delayed CINV in pediatric patients is not well understood. Therefore, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron for delayed CINV in pediatric patients.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was performed. A meta-analysis was performed using forest plots, and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A funnel plot was constructed to explore publication bias.

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved 842 records, of which 23 full-text articles were assessed, including six RCTs. Meta-analysis of four RCTs that reported on the complete response (CR: defined as no emesis and no rescue medication) rate for delayed CINV revealed that palonosetron was statistically superior to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs (RR = 1.21 [95% CI 1.09-1.35]; p < 0.01). Although the number of studies included was small, no publication bias was observed in the funnel plots. In addition, the CR rate for overall and acute CINV was also significantly higher for palonosetron (RR = 1.25 [95% CI 1.01-1.54]; p = 0.04 and RR = 1.06 [95% CI 1.01-1.12]; p = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron is effective in the prophylaxis of delayed CINV in pediatric patients.

Efficacy of the dexamethasone-sparing triplet regimen for preventing cisplatin-induced emesis: a combined analysis

Aim: To further evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of single-dose versus multiple-dose dexamethasone (DEX) against nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin. Materials & methods: Two similar non-inferiority studies were pooled. Patients were randomized to single-day DEX or multiple-day DEX plus palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase. Results: The combined analysis included 242 patients. The absolute risk difference between single day versus multi-day DEX for CR was -2% (95% CI, -14 to 9%). Conclusion: Administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in the setting of single-day cisplatin.

Aprepitant plus palonosetron versus dexamethasone plus palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy: A randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background

Despite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by using dexamethasone combined with palonosetron for patients who received moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), some of these patients still suffer from CINV. We evaluated whether aprepitant combined with palonosetron can improve the efficacy in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving MEC.

Methods

This was a single-centre, open-label, phase III, randomized controlled trial, which was done at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University of China. The registered patients planned to receive mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) but had not received any chemotherapy previously. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the aprepitant group (aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1, 80 mg on day 2-3) and the dexamethasone group (dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously on day 1, 5 mg on days 2 and 3), both groups with palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously on day 1. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), defined as the absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the overall phase (0-120 h). The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded all patients who used estazolam within 24 h before registration and those who refused to keep a diary documenting the severity of nausea, frequency of vomiting, and the use of rescue therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02909478.

Findings

Between Sep 1, 2017, and Oct 23, 2019, 320 patients were enrolled, and 315 patients were evaluated. The proportion of patients who achieved CR was significantly higher with aprepitant than that noted with dexamethasone in the overall phase (88.8% vs. 74.2%; P = 0.0010; rate difference, RD 15%, 95% CI, 6% to 23%) and in the delayed phase (25-120 h), 90.6% vs. 75.5%, (P < 0.0001; RD 15%, 95%CI, 7% to 23%). No significant difference of CR rate was observed in the acute phase (0-24 h), 93.8% vs. 93.5%, (P = 0.94; RD 0%, 95% CI, -5% to 6%)). In the overall phase, the incidence of insomnia (P < 0.0010), dyspepsia (P = 0.038), and flushing (P = 0.0010) reported by the patients was significantly higher in the dexamethasone group than that in the aprepitant group.

Interpretation

Aprepitant combined with palonosetron is superior to dexamethasone combined with palonosetron in patients who received the MEC regimen mFOLFOX6 in terms of preventing CINV.

Funding

The National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFC1316000) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81974369).

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Emetogenicity of Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) in Solid Tumors with a Focus on Trastuzumab Deruxtecan: Insights from an Italian Expert Panel

Simple Summary

Four antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are approved for the treatment of solid tumors, improving the therapeutic index. Despite their high selectivity, nausea and vomiting are the most frequently observed side effects. A deeper understanding of the potential risk for nausea and vomiting is crucial, as they can affect patients’ quality of life and treatment adherence. Prophylaxis with the potential combination of antiemetic therapy with complementary non-pharmacological approaches are even more important, considering that ADC therapies are generally given continuously until disease progression or the occurrence of toxicities.

Abstract

In the past decade, nine antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been approved for the treatment of various tumors, four of which specifically for solid malignancies. ADCs deliver the cytotoxic payload to the cancer site, thereby improving chemotherapy efficacy while reducing systemic drug exposure and toxicity. With their high selectivity, ADCs are associated with a manageable side-effect profile, with nausea and vomiting being among the most frequent toxicities, although this may vary according to the respective ADC and the associated payload. Information about the emetic risk of the new ADC compounds is limited. Three virtual focus groups of Italian oncologists were held to raise awareness on the importance of an antiemetic prophylaxis regimen to prevent and mitigate ADC-associated emesis and its sequelae. After reviewing published evidence and guidelines, the three expert panels shared their experience on the early use of ADCs gained through the participation in specific clinical trials and their clinical practice. The following issues were discussed: antiemetic therapy during trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment, with a protocol adopted at the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy); the use of steroids; the management of anticipatory nausea during trastuzumab deruxtecan therapy; nutritional counselling; and effective doctor–patient communication. The experts acknowledged that recommendations should be drug-specific, and formulated opinion-based advice intended to guide physicians in their daily practice until further evidence emerges.

A single-arm feasibility study of gradual dose de-escalation of antiemetic dexamethasone for older patients receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether discontinuation of prophylactic dexamethasone by gradual dose de-escalation is practicable in older patients with cancer undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-arm, feasibility study prospectively enrolled 40 patients (≥70 years old) with colorectal cancer, who were scheduled to undergo adjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy, and ten patients ≤60 years old to serve as a control group for pharmacokinetic study. All patients received an antiemetic regimen consisting of intravenous dexamethasone 8 mg and palonosetron at day 1 of the first cycle and underwent phone interviews using symptom questionnaires at day 7 of each cycle. Dexamethasone was tapered off through gradual de-escalation by 2 mg per cycle, when complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue therapy) was achieved. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who discontinued dexamethasone completely.

RESULTS

The median age of the patient was 74 years, and 50% were male. Of the 40 patients, 36 completed twelve cycles of chemotherapy, and 73% (N = 29) were able to discontinue dexamethasone completely. The mean (±SD) dose of dexamethasone per cycle was 3.0 mg (±2.4 mg), which was reduced to 37.5% of the initial dose level. The severity of patient-reported nausea did not significantly change over chemotherapy cycle. Geriatric assessment revealed no decline in any domain and fasting blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels were not elevated after twelve cycles of chemotherapy, compared to the baseline.

CONCLUSION

Gradual dose de-escalation and discontinuation of prophylactic dexamethasone is feasible without compromising its antiemetic effect in older patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Efficacy of one-day versus multiple-day dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategies (one-day DEX) with palonosetron as doublet antiemetic prophylaxis have previously been studied. However, DEX-sparing regimens with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, have not been evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of 5-HT₃RA, APR, and DEX on day 1 of carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

Data were pooled from a nationwide, multicenter, prospective observational study using propensity score-matched analysis to compare the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) between one- and multiple-day DEX regimens in combination with 5-HT₃RA plus APR.

RESULTS

Incidence of delayed nausea was significantly higher in the one-day than in the multiple-day DEX group. Incidence of nausea was also significantly higher in the one-day than in the multiple-day DEX group on days 3-5. Kaplan-Meier curves for nausea showed a significant difference between the two groups; however, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of vomiting or the Kaplan-Meier curves of time to vomiting.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the efficacy of a DEX-sparing regimen by comparing one- and multiple-day DEX combined with 5-HT₃RA and APR concerning CINV incidence in lung cancer patients receiving CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Antiemetic regimens of one-day DEX result in poor control of delayed nausea; therefore, we recommend the application of the DEX-sparing strategy only after careful patient selection while considering the development of nausea.

Optimizing antiemetic treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Japan: Update summary of the 2015 Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis

Patients with cancer should appropriately receive antiemetic therapies against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Antiemetic guidelines play an important role in managing CINV. Accordingly, the first Japanese antiemetic guideline published in 2010 by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology (JSCO) has considerably aided Japanese medical staff in providing antiemetic therapies across chemotherapy clinics. With the yearly advancements in antiemetic therapies, the Japanese antiemetic guidelines require revisions according to published evidence regarding antiemetic management worldwide. A revised version of the first antiemetic guideline that considered several upcoming evidences had been published online in 2014 (version 1.2), in which several updated descriptions were included. The 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0) (in Japanese) has addressed clinical antiemetic concerns and includes four major revisions regarding (1) changes in emetogenic risk categorization for anti-cancer agents, (2) olanzapine usage as an antiemetic drug, (3) the steroid-sparing method, and (4) adverse drug reactions of antiemetic agents. We herein present an English update summary for the 2015 JSCO clinical practice guideline for antiemesis (version 2.0).

5HT3 RA plus dexamethasone plus aprepitant for controlling delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in colorectal cancer

Delayed chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is not well controlled in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing oxaliplatin (L‐OHP)‐based chemotherapy. Whether neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist addition to a first‐generation 5HT₃ antagonist (1st 5‐HT₃RA) and dexamethasone (DEX) is beneficial to these patients remains controversial. Furthermore, whether palonosetron (PALO) or aprepitant (APR) is more effective in controlling delayed CINV is unclear. We, therefore, investigated whether PALO+DEX or 1st 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR was more effective in controlling delayed CINV, and the risk factors for delayed CINV, in CRC patients undergoing L‐OHP–based chemotherapy. Data were pooled from two prospective observational Japanese studies and a phase III trial to compare CINV incidence between the PALO + DEX (PALO) and 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR (APR) groups by propensity score–matched analysis. CINV risk factors were identified using logistic regression models. The CINV incidence was higher in the PALO group than in the APR group. Logistic regression analysis revealed alcohol consumption, motion sickness, and the PALO+DEX regimen as independent risk factors for delayed nausea, and female sex and the PALO+DEX regimen as those for delayed vomiting. Compared with prophylactic PALO + DEX, 1st 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR was more effective in controlling delayed CINV. Thus, CRC patients receiving L‐OHP–based chemotherapy should be treated with three antiemetics, including APR.

Duration of dexamethasone administration for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is the most common non-haematological toxicity of chemotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing short course (1-2 days) with long course (3+ days) dexamethasone in preventing CINV was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

1535 articles were screened to identify the 11 studies included in the review. Nine studies of 1892 patients were included in meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in complete response of nausea and vomiting between a short or long course of dexamethasone (RR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.89-1.07, p = 0.58). There was a lower risk of adverse events with a short course of dexamethasone (RR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.64-0.99, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between a short or long course of dexamethasone in preventing nausea or vomiting, but a short course was associated with fewer adverse effects. PROSPERO protocol: CRD42019133785.

Metoclopramide, Dexamethasone, or Palonosetron for Prevention of Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEDEA): A Randomized, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial

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.gov identifier. 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.

Reducing dexamethasone antiemetic prophylaxis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from Ontario, Canada

Purpose

People with cancer face an elevated risk of infection and severe sequelae from COVID-19. Dexamethasone is commonly used for antiemetic prophylaxis with systemic therapy for cancer. However, dexamethasone is associated with increased risk of viral and respiratory infections, and causes lymphopenia, which is associated with worse outcomes during COVID-19 infections. Our purpose was to minimize dexamethasone exposure during antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic therapy for solid tumors during the COVID-19 pandemic, while maintaining control of nausea and emesis.

Methods

We convened an expert panel to systematically review the literature and formulate consensus recommendations.

Results

No studies considered the impact of dexamethasone-based antiemetic regimens on the risk and severity of COVID-19 infection. Expert consensus recommended modifications to the 2019 Cancer Care Ontario Antiemetic Recommendations.

Conclusion

Clinicians should prescribe the minimally effective dose of dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis. Single-day dexamethasone dosing is recommended over multi-day dosing for regimens with high emetogenic risk excluding high-dose cisplatin, preferably in combination with palonosetron, netupitant, and olanzapine. For regimens with low emetogenic risk, 5-HT₃ antagonists are recommended over dexamethasone.

Impact of dexamethasone-sparing regimens on delayed nausea caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a meta-analysis of randomised evidence

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.

Every-other-day palonosetron plus aprepitant for prevention of emesis following induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia: A randomized, controlled study from the "Rete Ematologica Pugliese"

BACKGROUND

Compared with older 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, palonosetron requires fewer drug administrations to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following multiple-day chemotherapy. We conducted a phase II multicenter study comparing palonosetron plus aprepitant to palonosetron alone in patients undergoing a range of induction chemotherapy regimens for acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

METHODS

Patients were randomized to palonosetron (0.25 mg) every other day until the last dose of chemotherapy alone or with aprepitant on days 1-3. Patients mainly received an anthracycline on days 1-3 plus cytarabine administered for 5-10 days. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) over the whole study period (days of chemotherapy plus two additional days). Unplanned analysis of time to anti-emetic treatment failure (TTF) was also performed.

RESULTS

Of the 134 patients enrolled in the study, 130 were evaluable: 68 subjects received palonosetron plus aprepitant and 62 received palonosetron alone. Although the primary end point of CR was similar between the treatment arms (72% vs 69%; P = .55), a higher proportion of patients treated with palonosetron plus aprepitant were free from nausea during the whole study period (43% vs 27%; P = .03). There was also a significant difference in favor of the two-drug regimens in TTF (median: 5 days vs 3 days; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that every-other-day palonosetron plus 3-day aprepitant can add clinical benefit to the control of CINV caused by multiple-day, corticosteroid-free chemotherapy for AML. In this challenging setting of CINV, further investigations of palonosetron in combination with aprepitant administered with an expanded schedule are warranted. ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT02205164.

Dexamethasone-sparing regimen is an effective and safe alternative in overall antiemetic protection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analyisis to evaluate the efficacy of maintenance dexamethasone against acute or delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately or highly emetic risk chemotherapy regimen.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. Data comparing maintenance dexamethasone with single-dose dexamethasone during the acute, delayed, and overall phase of CINV were extracted. Overall risk ratio (RR) was used to estimate the efficacy and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included. In delayed phase, maintenance dexamethasone has similar efficacy to single-dose dexamethasone for no emetic episodes (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.14), complete response (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.11), complete control (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.98-1.16), and total control (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.23). In overall phase, maintenance dexamethasone has similar efficacy to single-dose dexamethasone for no emetic episodes (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.11), complete response (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95 -1.09), complete control (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.94-1.13), total control (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.23), and no rescue medication (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.97-1.19). Maintenance dexamethasone was only superior to single-dose dexamethasone for no rescue medication during delayed phase (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21, P = .034). The incidence of hiccup was observed higher in maintenance dexamethasone group (RR = 3.16, 95% CI, 1.12-8.92).

CONCLUSION

The single-dose dexamethasone regimen offers high and similar overall control of symptoms as the maintenance dexamethasone regimen in this population. Multiple-day dexamethasone was suitable for patients who used rescue medication during the delayed phase.

Clinical trial protocol of doublet therapy and olanzapine for carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancer: a multicentre phase II trial

INTRODUCTION

Adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁RA) to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone (DEX) improved carboplatin (CBDCA)-induced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with thoracic cancer. NK₁RAs with high-drug cost are raising medical expenses. Olanzapine (OLZ) is less expensive and can be expected to have an excellent effect on CINV. This phase II trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of 5 mg OLZ plus granisetron (GRN) and DEX in CBDCA combination therapy with area under curve (AUC) ≥5 mg/mL/min for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase II trial. Patients who receive CBDCA-based therapies (AUC ≥5) and have never been administered moderate to high emetogenic chemotherapy will be enrolled. All patients will receive a combination of GRN, DEX and OLZ. The primary endpoint is complete response (CR) rate, defined as the absence of emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication for 120 hours after the initiation of CBDCA. Forty-eight patients are required based on our hypothesis that this regimen can improve CR rate from 65% (null hypothesis) to 80% (alternative hypothesis) with a one-sided type I error of 0.1 and a power of 0.8. We set the target sample size at 50 considering dropouts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board at each of the participating centres. Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000031267.

One-Day Versus Three-Day Dexamethasone in Combination with Palonosetron for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data-Based Meta-Analysis

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.

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.

Economic analysis of palonosetron versus granisetron in the standard triplet regimen for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Japan (TRIPLE phase III trial)

Background

We conducted an economic assessment using test data from the phase III TRIPLE study, which examined the efficacy of a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist as part of a standard triplet antiemetic regimen including aprepitant and dexamethasone in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Methods

We retrospectively investigated all medicines prescribed for antiemetic purposes within 120 h after the initiation of cisplatin administration during hospitalization. In the TRIPLE study, patients were assigned to treatment with granisetron (GRA) 1 mg (n = 413) or palonosetron (PALO) 0.75 mg (n = 414). The evaluation measure was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) assessed as the cost per complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching and no rescue medication). The analysis was conducted from the public healthcare payer’s perspective.

Results

The CR rates were 59.1% in the GRA group and 65.7% in the PALO group (P = 0.0539), and the total frequencies of rescue medication use for these groups were 717 (153/413 patients) and 573 (123/414 patients), respectively. In both groups, drugs with antidopaminergic effects were chosen as rescue medication in 86% of patients. The costs of including GRA and PALO in the standard triplet antiemetic regimen were 15,342.8 and 27,863.8 Japanese yen (JPY), respectively. In addition, the total costs of rescue medication use were 73,883.8 (range, 71,106.4–79,017.1) JPY for the GRA group and 59,292.7 (range, 57,707.5–60,972.8) JPY for the PALO group. The CERs (JPY/CR) were 26,263.4 and 42,628.6 for the GRA and PALO groups, respectively, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was 189,171.6 (189,044.8–189,215.5) JPY/CR.

Conclusions

We found that PALO was more expensive than GRA in patients who received a cisplatin-based HEC regimen.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40780-018-0128-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy of Ginger in Ameliorating Acute and Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients With Lung Cancer Receiving Cisplatin-Based Regimens: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Nausea and vomiting are among the most common and distressing side effects of chemotherapy. Additional antiemetic drugs are urgently needed to effectively manage and ameliorate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The efficacy of ginger as an antiemetic modality for ameliorating CINV has not been established in previous studies. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of ginger, as an adjuvant drug to standard antiemetic therapy, in ameliorating acute and delayed CINV in patients with lung cancer receiving cisplatin-based regimens. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 140 patients with lung cancer receiving cisplatin-based regimens were enrolled and allocated to receive either ginger root powder or a placebo. Ginger root powder was administered orally (0.5 g, 2 capsules per day, 0.25 g per capsule, every 12 hours) for 5 days beginning on the first day of chemotherapy. The incidence and severity of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting were assessed using the MASCC (Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer) Antiemesis Tool (MAT). Adverse effects and patient adherence were also assessed in this study. No significant difference was observed between the ginger and control groups in the reduction of the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting ( P > .05). No significant difference in adverse events was observed between the 2 groups ( P > .05). No study-treatment-related adverse events were observed in this study. As an adjuvant drug to standard antiemetic therapy, ginger had no additional efficacy in ameliorating CINV in patients with lung cancer receiving cisplatin-based regimens.

Efficacy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy for gynecologic cancers: a phase II study by the West Japan Gynecologic Oncology Group (WJGOG 131)

OBJECTIVE

Palonosetron is effective for the management of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). While emetogenic carboplatin-based chemotherapy is widely used to treat gynecologic cancers, few studies have evaluated the antiemetic effectiveness of palonosetron in this setting.

METHODS

A multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase II trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of palonosetron in controlling CINV in patients with gynecologic cancer. Chemotherapy-naïve patients received intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg/body) and dexamethasone before the infusion of carboplatin-based chemotherapy on day 1. Dexamethasone was administered (orally or intravenously) on days 2-3. The incidence and severity of CINV were evaluated using the patient-completed Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool and treatment diaries. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing complete control (CC) of vomiting, with "no rescue antiemetic medication" and "no clinically significant nausea" or "only mild nausea" in the delayed phase (24-120 hours post-chemotherapy). Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR: "no vomiting" and "no rescue antiemetic medication") in the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (24-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) phases, and CC in the acute and overall phases.

RESULTS

Efficacy was assessable in 77 of 80 patients recruited. In the acute and delayed phases, the CR rates the primary endpoint, were 71.4% and 59.7% and the CC rates, the secondary endpoint, were 97.4% and 96.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While palonosetron effectively controls acute CINV, additional antiemetic management is warranted in the delayed phase after carboplatin-based chemotherapy in gynecologic cancer patients (Trial registry at UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000012806).

Recent advances in antiemetics: new formulations of 5HT3-receptor antagonists

Purpose

To discuss new therapeutic strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) involving 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃)-receptor antagonists (RAs).

Summary

CINV remains poorly controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); nausea and delayed-phase CINV (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) are the most difficult to control. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) antiemesis-guideline recommendations for HEC include a four-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, neurokinin 1 [NK₁] RA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine). For some MEC regimens, a three-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, NK₁ RA, and dexamethasone) is recommended. While 5HT₃ RAs have dramatically improved CINV in the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy), their efficacy declines in the delayed phase. Newer formulations have been developed to extend 5HT₃-RA efficacy into the delayed phase. Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), the most recently approved 5HT₃ RA, provides slow, controlled release of therapeutic granisetron concentrations for ≥5 days. GERSC is included in the NCCN and ASCO guidelines for MEC and HEC, with NCCN-preferred status for MEC in the absence of an NK₁ RA. Efficacy and safety of 5HT₃ RAs in the context of guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy are reviewed.

Conclusion

Recent updates in antiemetic guidelines and the development of newer antiemet-ics should help mitigate CINV, this dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. GERSC, the most recently approved 5HT₃-RA formulation, is indicated for use with other antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of MEC and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination-chemotherapy regimens.

Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blinded Phase III Study Comparing Dexamethasone on Day 1 With Dexamethasone on Days 1 to 3 With Combined Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist and Palonosetron in High-Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Purpose We evaluated the noninferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2 and 3, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK₁-RA) and palonosetron (Palo) compared with the 3-day use of DEX in highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients and Methods Patients who were scheduled to receive HEC (cisplatin ≥ 50 mg/m² or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide) were randomly assigned to receive either DEX on days 1 to 3 (Arm D3) or DEX on day 1 and placebo on days 2 and 3 (Arm D1) combined with NK₁-RA and Palo. The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue medications during the overall (0 to 120 h) phase. The noninferiority margin was set at -15.0% (Arm D1 - Arm D3). Results A total of 396 patients-196 and 200 patients in Arms D3 and D1, respectively-were evaluated. CR rates during the overall period were 46.9% for Arm D3 and 44.0% for Arm D1 (95% CI, -12.6% to 6.8%; P = .007). CR rates during the acute (0 to 24 h) phase were 63.3% and 64.5% for Arms D3 and D1, respectively (95% CI, -8.1% to 10.6%; P < .001), and they were 56.6% and 51.5%, respectively, during the delayed (24 to 120 h) phase (95% CI, -14.8% to 4.6%; P = .023). Hot flushes and tremors were observed more frequently as DEX-related adverse events on days 4 and 5 in Arm D3, whereas anorexia, depression, and fatigue were observed more frequently on days 2 and 3 in Arm D1. As an indication of quality of life, global health status was similar in both arms. Conclusion Antiemetic DEX administration on days 2 and 3 can be spared when combined with NK₁-RA and Palo in HEC.

Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Purpose

To update the ASCO guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

Methods

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the medical literature for the period of November 2009 to June 2016.

Results

Forty-one publications were included in this systematic review. A phase III randomized controlled trial demonstrated that adding olanzapine to antiemetic prophylaxis reduces the likelihood of nausea among adult patients who are treated with high emetic risk antineoplastic agents. Randomized controlled trials also support an expanded role for neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in patients who are treated with chemotherapy.

Recommendation

Key updates include the addition of olanzapine to antiemetic regimens for adults who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents or who experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting; a recommendation to administer dexamethasone on day 1 only for adults who receive anthracycline and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy; and the addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist for adults who receive carboplatin area under the curve ≥ 4 mg/mL per minute or high-dose chemotherapy, and for pediatric patients who receive high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents. For radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, adjustments were made to anatomic regions, risk levels, and antiemetic administration schedules. Rescue therapy alone is now recommended for low-emetic-risk radiation therapy. The Expert Panel reiterated the importance of using the most effective antiemetic regimens that are appropriate for antineoplastic agents or radiotherapy being administered. Such regimens should be used with initial treatment, rather than first assessing the patient’s emetic response with less-effective treatment. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Compatibility and Stability of Nab-Paclitaxel in Combination with Other Drugs

Albumin-bound paclitaxel (Abraxane®, nab-paclitaxel) is not recommended to be administered concurrently or sequentially with other drugs due to concern for instability. The need to administer drugs separately increases infusion time. We evaluated the compatibility and stability of solutions containing nab-paclitaxel and other drugs, including gemcitabine hydrochloride, carboplatin, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, granisetron hydrochloride, and palonosetron hydrochloride. We visually examined changes in appearance, pH, and concentration of the mixed solutions of nab-paclitaxel and other drugs for up to 24 h. Concentration was measured using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The appearance and pH of the mixed solutions did not change for up to 24 h. The change in concentration up to 24 h was within 2%. The chromatogram did not change until 8 h. The results showed that the physical compatibility and chemical stability of nab-paclitaxel were not influenced when it was combined with other drugs until 8 h. This study suggests that nab-paclitaxel could be administered in a mixture or sequentially with other drugs to reduce administration time.

Antiemetic therapy for non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

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

Efficacy of triple antiemetic therapy (palonosetron, dexamethasone, aprepitant) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

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.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: role of transdermal granisetron

Granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) is the first 5-HT3 drug to be transdermally delivered and represents a convenient alternative to oral and intravenous antiemetics for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. GTDS is effective and well tolerated in patients receiving multiple-day moderate-to-highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this setting noninferiority studies showed similar efficacy when GTDS was compared with intravenous and oral granisetron and intravenous palonosetron. GTDS has shown good cardiovascular safety; however, special caution is needed in patients at risk for developing excessive QTc interval prolongation and arrhythmias. So far, GTDS has been investigated for intravenous prevention in comparison with granisetron and palonosetron; however, further prospects open the route to future clinical investigations.

Cheaper Options in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common challenge in oncology practice for which there are expensive guideline-based treatment options. Although supportive care in cancer adds significantly to the overall cost, the discussion of unaffordability of anticancer treatment frequently only revolves around the targeted drugs and immunotherapies. In this review, we highlight the available cost-saving strategies and recent updates in preventing CINV in patients with cancer. This is the first work, to our knowledge, to review specifically the less expensive alternatives in CINV prevention, which is particularly important for those working in resource-limited settings. Whereas patients in these settings often cannot afford expensive antiemetics, we now have the science to offer cheaper, more affordable options without necessarily compromising efficacy.

Choice of study endpoint significantly impacts the results of breast cancer trials evaluating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Multiple endpoints can be used to evaluate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). These endpoints reflect the various combinations of vomiting, nausea and rescue antiemetic use in the acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) periods after chemotherapy. As the choice of outcome measure could potentially change the interpretation of clinical trial results, we evaluated CINV rates using different endpoints on a single dataset from a prospective cohort. Data from 177 breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy was used to calculate CINV control rates using the 15 most commonly reported CINV endpoints. As nausea remains such a significant symptom, we explored the frequency at which pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical company-funded studies included measures of nausea in their primary study endpoint. CINV control rates ranged from 12.5 %, 95 % (CI 7.6-17.4 %) for total control (no vomiting, no nausea and no rescue medication) in the overall period to 77.4 %, 95 % (CI 71.2-83.6 %) for no vomiting in the overall period. Similar differences were found in the acute and delayed periods. Non-pharmaceutical company-funded trials were more likely to include a measure of nausea in the primary study outcome (9/18, 50 %) than pharmaceutical-funded trials (1/12, 8.3 %). The choice of trial endpoint has an important impact on reported CINV control rates and could significantly impact on interpretation of the results. Primary endpoints of studies, including those mandated by regulatory bodies, should account for nausea to reflect patient experience. Reporting of endpoints should be more comprehensive to allow for cross-trial comparisons.

Phase II randomized, controlled trial of 1 day versus 3 days of dexamethasone combined with palonosetron and aprepitant to prevent nausea and vomiting in Japanese breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone, plus a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and an NK-1 receptor antagonist are recommended for controlling the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Several days of dexamethasone are effective for CINV; however, dexamethasone also has side effects. The purpose of this trial was to investigate whether the use of a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and an NK-1 receptor antagonist could allow a reduced dose of dexamethasone for breast cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Eighty breast cancer patients who received an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination regimen were enrolled. The patients were randomized to arm A (dexamethasone days 1-3) and arm B (dexamethasone day 1). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). The secondary endpoints were the CR during the delayed phase (days 2-5), complete control (CC) (no emetic episodes, no rescue medication, and no more than mild nausea) during the overall phase, and the safety of this antiemetic therapy.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the rates of CR and CC between arm A and B as follows: CR overall phase--arm A: 82.9%, 90% confidence interval [CI] 71.3-90.5% vs arm B: 82.1%, 90% CI 70.0-90.0%; p = 1.00; CR delayed phase--arm A: 87.8%, 90% CI 77.0-93.9% vs arm B: 94.9%, 90% CI 85.6-98.3%; p = 0.43; CC overall phase--arm A: 48.8%, 90% CI 36.4-61.3% vs arm B: 61.5%, 90% CI 48.4-73.2%; p = 0.27. There were very few adverse events and no severe adverse events associated with this antiemetic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that the antiemetic effect provided by dexamethasone administered for 3 days can be obtained by dexamethasone administered for 1 day.

Palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy

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.

Should clinicians always administer dexamethasone beyond 24 h after chemotherapy to control delayed nausea and vomiting caused by moderately emetogenic regimens? Insight from the re-evaluation of two randomized studies

Purpose

Data from two noninferiority trials of a dexamethasone-sparing regimen were assessed for the impact of acute nausea and vomiting on delayed outcome in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC).

Methods

Chemo-naive patients were randomized to receive palonosetron (0.25 mg IV) plus dexamethasone (8 mg IV) on day 1 of chemotherapy, or the same regimen followed by oral dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 in the MEC (n = 237) and AC (n = 380) cohorts. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether or not they experienced vomiting and/or moderate-to-severe nausea during the acute phase (high- and low-risk groups, respectively). Primary efficacy endpoint was the complete protection (CP) against delayed vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea. Patient’s satisfaction (0–100 mm visual analog scale) was also analyzed.

Results

Among the 209 low-risk patients undergoing MEC, delayed CP occurred in 82.9 % of those who received single-dose dexamethasone and 89.8 % of those who received 3-day dexamethasone (P = 0.165). Of the 271 low-risk patients undergoing AC, CP was achieved in 71.7 % of those treated with single-dose dexamethasone and 84.2 % treated with 3-day dexamethasone (P = 0.019). In spite of these observations, the patient satisfaction data was not influenced by dexamethasone regimen. In both cohorts, occurrence of acute vomiting or moderate-to-severe nausea was the key independent-predictor for delayed vomiting or nausea, respectively.

Conclusions

The dexamethasone-sparing regimen provides adequate delayed protection in patients undergoing MEC who are at low risk for delayed symptoms, and can still be discussed for low-risk AC patients as the daily difference in control is modest. Additional dexamethasone doses can be customized on the basis of occurrence or absence of acute symptoms in the first cycle of MEC and even AC.

Prophylactic treatment for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after non-AC based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important adverse effect of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy not containing anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide (non-AC MEC). In this review, we summarize current literature to update recommendations for delayed CINV prophylaxis after non-AC MEC.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and conference proceedings from ASCO, ESMO, and MASCC. Included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of two or more antiemetic strategies in the prevention of delayed CINV after the administration of non-AC MEC. At least one of the following endpoints was used: complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and/or no use of rescue medication.

RESULTS

Our search provided 247 publications. Nine met the predefined criteria. Included RCTs reported outcomes on palonosetron, aprepitant, casopitant, netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), olanzapine, and megestrol acetate.

CONCLUSIONS

Superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV after non-AC MEC has not been proven. The addition of an NK1 receptor antagonist to first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists does not significantly improve the incidence of delayed CINV after non-AC MEC. The efficacy of a single-day regimen of dexamethasone with palonosetron is non-inferior to multiday dexamethasone. NEPA, olanzapine, and megestrol acetate show highly effective complete response (CR) rates.

Recent developments in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a comprehensive review

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been revolutionized over the past 25 years. Guideline-based treatment means that vomiting can be prevented in the majority, but not in all patients. Therefore, antiemetic research continues with the goal of optimizing CINV control for all patients. This comprehensive review summarizes the research efforts in this field over the past few years. Emerging from this research are two new antiemetic agents, netupitant/palonosetron, the first antiemetic combination agent and rolapitant, a new NK1RA. In addition, studies have evaluated the benefits of olanzapine and ginger, explored optimal combinations of agents for delayed CINV prevention, confirmed that dexamethasone-sparing regimens are effective, and demonstrated the value of NK1RAs in high-dose chemotherapy settings as well as with certain moderately emetogenic chemotherapies such as carboplatin. Research has also validated the correlation between antiemetic guideline adherence and improved CINV control. Finally, regulatory authorities have utilized extreme caution in retiring some 5-HT3RAs or decreasing their maximum dose.

Open-label, randomized, comparative, phase III study on effects of reducing steroid use in combination with Palonosetron

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of a single administration of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1 against DEX administration on days 1–3 in combination with palonosetron (PALO), a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) moderately-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). This phase III trial was conducted with a multi-center, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority design. Patients who received non-AC MEC as an initial chemotherapy were randomly assigned to either a group administered PALO (0.75 mg, i.v.) and DEX (9.9 mg, i.v.) prior to chemotherapy (study treatment group), or a group administered additional DEX (8 mg, i.v. or p.o.) on days 2–3 (control group). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate. The CR rate difference was estimated by logistic regression with allocation factors as covariates. The non-inferiority margin was set at −15% (study treatment group − control group). From April 2011 to March 2013, 305 patients who received non-AC MEC were randomly allocated to one of two study groups. Overall, the CR rate was 66.2% in the study treatment group (N = 151) and 63.6% in the control group (N = 154). PALO plus DEX day 1 was non-inferior to PALO plus DEX days 1–3 (difference, 2.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −7.8%–12.8%; P-value for non-inferiority test = 0.0004). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of complete control rate (64.9 vs 61.7%) and total control rate (49.7% vs 47.4%). Anti-emetic DEX administration on days 2–3 may be eliminated when used in combination with PALO in patients receiving non-AC MEC.

Palonosetron in combination with 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1 only in patients with gynecologic cancer receiving paclitaxel combined with carboplatin (TC). The primary endpoint was to evaluate the complete response (CR) rate in the delayed phase.

METHODS

This study was a randomized phase 2. Regardless of assignment to either study arm, all patients received an intravenous prophylactic regimen of DEX (20 mg) within 15 min and then an intravenous dose of PAL (0.75 mg) as a bolus given 30 min before initiation of TC on day 1. Patients in the DEX 1-day group received no additional DEX on days 2 and 3. Patients in the DEX 3-day group received DEX (8 mg) orally on days 2 and 3.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients had evaluable data on the primary outcome. The CR rates in the delayed phase between the two groups were not statistically significantly different (3-day group, 76.9 % [30/39]; 1-day group 69.8 % [30/43]; p = 0.4652). The frequency of constipation and insomnia which were antiemetic treatment-related adverse events was similar between two groups, and no serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of a combination of PAL and DEX 1 day may prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase for TC as well as administration of DEX 3 days. Further evaluation of the antiemetic regimen of combination of PAL and DEX 1 day for TC is warranted in future phase 3 trials.