Antiemetics in children receiving chemotherapy. MASCC/ESMO guideline update 2009

Safety and Tolerability of a 3-Day Fosaprepitant Regimen for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients: Results of an Open-Label, Single-Arm Phase 4 Trial

Convenient multiday dosing of antiemetic regimens for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are needed in pediatric patients, who are more likely than adults to be treated with emetogenic chemotherapy over multiple consecutive days. Intravenous (IV) fosaprepitant is approved for the prevention of CINV in children aged 6 months and older. This open-label, single-arm study assessed the safety and tolerability of a 3-day fosaprepitant regimen (consecutive daily IV administration on days 1-3) plus a serotonin receptor antagonist with or without dexamethasone in pediatric patients (6 months to 17 years) receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. Study treatment was initiated at the start of a chemotherapy cycle (cycle 1); patients completing cycle 1 could participate in optional cycles 2 and 3. Primary endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and AE-related discontinuation during cycle 1.98/100. Patients completed cycle 1; 69 participated in optional cycles 2 and 3. The AE profile during cycle 1 was typical of cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy; 80/100 (80.0%) patients experienced ≥1 AE. AE rates were generally similar between patients aged 6 months to <2 years (11/15 patients [73.3%]), 2 to <6 years (22/30 [73.3%]), 6 to <12 years (24/25 [96.0%]), and 12-17 years (23/30 [76.7%]). Rates of drug-related AEs (4/100 [4.0%]) and AE-related discontinuations (2/100 [2.0%]) were low. Similar trends in safety outcomes were observed during cycles 2 and 3. No deaths were reported. The 3-day IV fosaprepitant regimen for the prevention of CINV was generally well tolerated in pediatric patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy.

[Update of guidelines of the AFSOS, SFRO, SFH, SFNCM, SFCE, GFRP for the management of radio-induced nausea and vomiting]

BACKGROUND

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting have mutiple clinical consequences: delay or refusal of irradiation (decreased antineoplastic efficacy of irradiation), altered quality of life, dehydration, malnutrition, interruption of treatment, decompensation of comorbidities and aspiration. These guidelines aim at defining good clinical practices for management of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV).

METHODS

AFSOS, SFRO, SFH, SFNEP, SFCE and GFRP applied an expert consensus methodology to propose updated guidelines.

RESULTS

RINV are underdiagnosed and undertreated. Assessment of the emetogenic risk depends on two main factors: 1) the irradiated anatomical localization and 2) the associated concomitant chemotherapy. In case of exclusive radiotherapy, primary antiemetic prophylaxis depends on the emetogenic risk of irradiated anatomical localization. Primary antiemetic prophylaxis is initiated at the onset of irradiation and continues until 24h after the end of the irradiation. In the case of concomitant radiochemotherapy, the emetogenic risk is generally higher for chemotherapy and the primary antiemetic prophylaxis corresponds to that of chemo-induced nausea and vomiting. In the case of persistence of these symptoms, subject to a well-conducted treatment, a rigorous diagnostic procedure must be carried out before being attributed to radiotherapy and precise evaluation of their impact. Remedial treatments are less well codified.

CONCLUSION

It is essential to know and good management practices for radiation-induced nausea and vomiting.

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.

Antiemetic effects of sclareol, possibly through 5-HT3 and D2 receptor interaction pathways: In-vivo and in-silico studies

BACKGROUND

Emesis is a complex physiological phenomenon that serves as a defense against numerous toxins, stressful situations, adverse medication responses, chemotherapy, and movement. Nevertheless, preventing emesis during chemotherapy or other situations is a significant issue for researchers. Hence, the majority view contends that successfully combining therapy is the best course of action. In-vivo analysis offers a more comprehensive grasp of how compounds behave within a complex biological environment, whereas in-silico evaluation refers to the use of computational models to forecast biological interactions.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the effects of Sclareol (SCL) on copper sulphate-induced emetic chicks and to investigate the combined effects of these compounds using a conventional co-treatment approach and in-silico study.

METHODS

SCL (5, 10, and 15 mg/kg) administered orally with or without pre-treatment with anti-emetic drugs (Ondansetron (ODN): 24 mg/kg, Domperidone (DOM): 80 mg/kg, Hyoscine butylbromide (HYS): 100 mg/kg, and Promethazine hydrochloride (PRO): 100 mg/kg) to illustrate the effects and the potential involvement with 5HT3, D2, M3/AChM, H1, or NK1 receptors by SCL. Furthermore, an in-silico analysis was conducted to forecast the role of these receptors in the emetic process.

RESULTS

The results suggest that SCL exerted a dose-dependent anti-emetic effect on the chicks. Pretreatment with SCL-10 significantly minimized the number of retches and lengthened the emesis tendency of the experimental animals. SCL-10 significantly increased the anti-emetic effects of ODN and DOM. However, compared to the ODN-treated group, (SCL-10 + ODN) group considerably (p < 0.0001) extended the latency duration (109.40 ± 1.03 s) and significantly (p < 0.01) decreased the number of retches (20.00 ± 0.70), indicating an anti-emetic effect on the test animals. In in-silico analysis, SCL exhibited promising binding affinities with suggesting receptors.

CONCLUSION

SCL-10 exerted an inhibitory-like effect on emetic chicks, probably through the interaction of the 5HT3 and D2 receptors. Further studies are highly appreciated to validate this study and determine the precise mechanism(s) behind the anti-emetic effects of SCL. We expect that SCL-10 may be utilized as an antiemetic treatment in a single dosage form or that it may function as a synergist with other traditional medicines.

The emerging role of olanzapine in paediatric CINV control: A review

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a serious side effect of chemotherapy that negatively impacts the quality of life of oncological patients and is associated with the emetogenic risk specific to administered chemotherapy. Current practice guidelines on the use of antiemetics in CINV include the option of adding olanzapine to antiemetic regimens in the management of adult CINV. The use of olanzapine in pediatric CINV has been restricted to children with poor CINV control. Research on the use of olanzapine in pediatric CINV has been limited. The aim of this review was to evaluate current evidence on the effective and safe antiemetic use of olanzapine in pediatric CINV of any type following chemotherapy of any emetogenicity. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL databases were searched for any literature on the use of olanzapine in pediatric CINV published from 2015 to 2022. Studies that reported on the olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimen in peadiatric CINV control specifically were included. Search restrictions were placed on research published in English. The search generated 43 records that were assessed for eligibility. Out of 10 identified eligible studies a third were RCT. Findings of this review suggest that adding olanzapine to antiemetic regimen in pediatric CINV control is a worthwhile consideration. Further research is needed to establish the efficacy and safety of antiemetic olanzapine use in pediatric CINV.

Phase III study of palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron has demonstrated non-inferiority to ondansetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients in the United States and Europe. We conducted a single-arm registration study to evaluate the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of palonosetron in pediatric patients in Japan.

METHODS

Key inclusion criteria were age of 28 days to 18 years and malignant disease for which initial highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was planned. Patients received palonosetron at 20 μg/kg over at least 30 s intravenously before the start of highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and received dexamethasone on Days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response in the overall phase (0-120 h) in Course 1, and its threshold was set at 30%.

RESULTS

From December 2016 to June 2019, 60 patients were enrolled, and 58 received at least one dose of palonosetron. The proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the overall phase was 58.6% (95% confidence interval, 44.9%-71.4%), showing the primary endpoint was met (P < 0.0001). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in two patients (3.4%). Regarding the pharmacokinetics of palonosetron, neither the plasma concentration immediately after administration nor the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity differed significantly among the age groups.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated the efficacy of palonosetron in pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and confirmed the appropriateness of the 20 μg/kg dose, regardless of age, considering the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

JapicCTI-163305, registered 6 June 2016.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes and efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron in combination with dexamethasone in Egyptian patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is considered one of the most serious adverse events affecting chemotherapy-receiving cancer patients. It dramatically affects their food intake, nutritional status and more importantly their quality of life. We can observe CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) such as adriamycin-cyclophosphamide combination (AC) in breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other cancer types. This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) over granisetron (GRA) in combination with dexamethasone for multiple highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs (HEC), especially in chemotherapy regimens in Egyptian breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other diseases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An open-label randomized trial was carried out, including 115 patients receiving at least four cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. All patients received dexamethasone in combination with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. We recorded patients' clinical and biochemical characteristics and withdraw blood samples to monitor serum substance P and serotonin in correlation with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We use the MASCC antiemetic tool in the acute phase (0-24 hr) and delayed phase (24-120 h) to evaluate patient outcomes in both stages after each chemotherapy cycle.

RESULTS

In (PALO) group, only 7.84% of patients showed acute vomiting, and 11.76% showed acute nausea, whereas 43.75% of patients showed acute vomiting and 89.06% showed acute nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). For delayed CINV, 23.53% of patients showed delayed vomiting, and 47.06% showed delayed nausea in the (PALO) group, while 82.81% of patients showed delayed emesis, and 92.19% showed delayed nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). The study showed that PALO is a cost-effective choice when compared to GRA in CINV prevention as 45.10% of patients in (PALO) required additional rescue medications (Domperidone 10 mg orally three times per day plus Trimebutine 200 mg orally three times per week both for 5 days), while 95.24% in the (GRA) group used the same medications. Adverse events of both antiemetic drugs (PALO and GRA) include headaches and constipation and QTc prolongation reports, mostly mild to moderate, with relatively low rates among the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron, combined with dexamethasone, is more effective than granisetron and dexamethasone combination against both acute and delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) cisplatin-based protocols and the combination of cyclophosphamide and anthracyclines (AC). Medical team members should make more efforts, especially clinical pharmacy personnel, to monitor medications' effectiveness and help the medical team achieve a suitable and reliable care plan.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine on nausea and vomiting in children with cancer: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting are two most common symptoms reported by children with cancer when they undergo active treatment. However, pharmacological treatment is not sufficient to manage these two symptoms, with over 40% of children still experience nausea and vomiting after receiving antiemetics. There has been an exponential growth of studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of different complementary complementary medicine (CAM) to control nausea and vomiting during cancer treatment. Appropriate application of CAM enhances the effectiveness of antiemetics, thus reducing the symptom burden on children as well as improving their general condition and quality of life during cancer treatment. Nevertheless, it remains unclear which CAM is the best approach to help children to prevent or reduce nausea and vomiting during and after cancer treatment. This paper describes a protocol for identifying, analysing and synthesising research evidence on the effectiveness of CAM on nausea and vomiting in children with cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A total of 10 databases will be searched to identify appropriate literature: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, OpenSIGLE, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the Chinese Medical Current Contents and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure. All randomised controlled trials which meet the inclusion criteria will be included. The primary outcome is the changes in nausea and vomiting either assessed by self-reported and/or objective measures. Review Manager 5.3 will be used to synthesise the data, calculate the treatment effects, perform any subgroup analysis and assess the risk of bias.

ETHICAL AND DISSEMINATION

The results will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. As no individual data will be involved in this review, ethical approval is not required.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019135404.

Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Current antiemetic regimens are less effective in children than in adults. Fosaprepitant was recently approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children aged six months and older.

PROCEDURE

The pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) profile, safety, and tolerability of a single intravenous dose of fosaprepitant administered concomitantly with ondansetron with/without dexamethasone were evaluated in pediatric patients with cancer receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. PK/PD from three doses of fosaprepitant (3.0, 1.2, and 0.4 mg/kg, up to 150, 60, and 20 mg, respectively) were compared with placebo in 2- to 17-year-old subjects; an open-label amendment evaluated a fourth dose (5.0 mg/kg, up to 150 mg) in those under 12 years old. Historical adult PK data were used for comparison. Efficacy was measured as an exploratory endpoint.

RESULTS

PK data were evaluable for 167/234 subjects who completed cycle one. Aprepitant exposures were dose proportional; adolescents (12 to 17 years) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg had exposures similar to adults at the same dose. Higher weight-normalized doses (5 mg/kg) were necessary for children aged < 12 years to achieve comparable adult exposures. The adverse event profile was typical of cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16 (6.8%) subjects, with hiccups being most common (n = 5; 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous fosaprepitant was well tolerated by pediatric subjects with cancer, and dose-proportional exposures were observed. Subjects < 12 years old required higher doses to achieve comparable adult exposures.

Palonosetron is a Better Choice Compared With Ondansetron for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in a Resource-limited Pediatric Oncology Center: Results From a Randomized Control Trial

Palonosetron (PG) is a newer, safe, and effective long-acting 5-HT3 antagonist commonly used in adults, but data in children are limited. A randomized controlled trial was carried out among children with cancer during their first cycle of moderate or highly emetogenic chemotherapy to receive either PG or ondansetron (OG) with the aim of comparing their efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. In total, 200 children (mean age, 8 y, male:female=1.8:1) were recruited, 100 in each arm. Complete response, defined as no vomiting, in acute (<24 h), delayed (24 to 120 h), and overall phases (0 to 120 h) was observed in 88%, 88%, and 81% of cases, respectively, for PG versus 84%, 79%, and 72%, respectively, for OG (P=0.42, 0.09 and 0.21, respectively). Complete protection rates, defined as no nausea and vomiting in children above 6 years of age, in acute, delayed, and overall phases were 84%, 81%, and 73%, respectively, for PG versus 79%, 67%, and 60%, respectively, for OG (P=0.44, 0.06 and 0.10, respectively). Overall, the efficacy and safety of PG in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was comparable with OG, but PG was a more cost-effective and suitable choice for busy centers in resource-limited countries.

Single center experience on efficacy and safety of Aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing treatment side-effect that could negatively affect children's quality of life (QoL). Different scoring systems for CINV were applied and different antiemetic drugs were used; however, few studies have been performed in children undergoing chemotherapy with Aprepitant. Herein, we report a pediatric experience on efficacy and safety of Aprepitant as part of triple antiemetic prophylaxis, in a cohort of thirty-two children and adolescents with Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL), treated with moderate/highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC/HEC) regimens in a single Hemato-Oncology Institution. The triple therapy was compared to standard antiemetic therapy in a cohort of twenty-three HL patients (control group). Aprepitant therapy was associated to a significant decrease of chemotherapy-induced vomiting (p = 0.0001), while no impact on the reduction of nausea was observed; these observations were also confirmed by multivariate analysis (p = 0.0040). Aprepitant was well tolerated and the most commonly reported adverse events were neutropenia and hypertransaminasemia. No significant differences on the toxicity were observed between the two compared groups. Our experience on Aprepitant efficacy and safety, associated with feasibility of orally administration, suggests a possible widespread use of the drug to prevent pediatric CINV.

Update Breast Cancer 2019 Part 2 - Implementation of Novel Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Advanced Breast Cancer Patients in Clinical Practice

The treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer has developed further in recent years. In addition to therapeutic progress in the established subgroups (hormone receptor and HER2 status), there are now therapies which are geared to individual molecular characteristics, such as PARP inhibitor therapy in BRCA-mutated patients. In addition to this, tests are being developed which are intended to establish additional markers within subgroups in order to predict the efficacy of a therapy. PI3K mutation testing in HER2-negative, hormone-receptor-positive tumours and PD-L1 testing of immune cells in triple-negative tumours are expected to become established in clinical practice in order to select patients for the respective therapies. With new therapeutic approaches, new adverse effects also appear. The management of these adverse effects, just as those of classical therapy (supportive therapy), is essential with the introduction of new treatments in order to preserve patients' quality of life. Knowledge regarding measures to preserve and improve quality of life has significantly increased in recent years. Lifestyle factors should be taken into account, as should modern therapeutic methods. This review summarises the latest studies and publications and evaluates them in regard to the relevance for clinical practice.

Cannabinoids: the lows and the highs of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Despite remaining one of the most widely abused drugs worldwide, Cannabis sativa exhibits remarkable medicinal properties. The phytocannabinoids, cannabidiol and Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, reduce nausea and vomiting, particularly during chemotherapy. This is attributed to their ability to reduce the release of serotonin from enterochromaffin cells in the small intestine, which would otherwise orchestrate the vomiting reflex. Although there are many preclinical and clinical studies on the effects of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol during nausea and vomiting, little is known about the role that cannabidiol plays in this scenario. Since cannabidiol does not induce psychotropic effects, in contrast to other cannabinoids, its use as an anti-emetic is of great interest. This review aims to summarize the available literature on cannabinoid use, with a specific focus on the nonpsychotropic drug cannabidiol, as well as the roles that cannabinoids play in preventing several other adverse side effects of chemotherapy including organ toxicity, pain and loss of appetite.

Palonosetron is nonsuperior to ondansetron in acute phase but provides superior antiemetic control in delayed phase for pediatric patients administered highly emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children remains to be a major side effect despite antiemetic treatment. Palonosetron is a new generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists effective against acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic values of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing pediatric CINV.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel controlled study was conducted in 0-18 years old cancer patients administered highly emetogenic chemotherapy, with different dosage of palonosetron or ondansetron, both followed by dexamethasone. The patients were observed for vomiting and nausea from 0 to 120 hr after chemotherapy initiation. All adverse events (AEs) during the study period were recorded. This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number ChiCTR-TRC-14004891.

RESULTS

Between August 2014 and July 2016, 565 patients were randomly assigned to receive 5 μg/kg palonosetron (n = 185), 10 μg/kg palonosetron (n = 186), and 3 × 150 μg/kg ondansetron (n = 194), of whom 181, 185, and 189, respectively, were included in the efficacy analysis. Complete response (CR) rates during the acute phase were 69.1, 69.7, and 64.6%, respectively, in the 5 μg/kg palonosetron, 10 μg/kg palonosetron, and ondansetron groups. In the delayed phase, 10 μg/kg palonosetron (CR, 53.5%) showed superiority to 5 μg/kg palonosetron (CR, 39.8%) and ondansetron (CR, 32.8%) groups (P < 0.05). The most frequently observed drug-related AEs were nervous system disorders, mainly headache, with an incidence of 2.8, 2.2, and 2.6% in each group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Combination of palonosetron plus dexamethasone is highly effective in controlling acute and delayed CINV, with palonosetron superior to ondansetron.

Rikkunshito for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Lung Cancer Patients: Results from 2 Prospective, Randomized Phase 2 Trials

The herbal medicine rikkunshito has the potential to improve chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by stimulating ghrelin secretion. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rikkunshito in preventing CINV for patients with lung cancer. Two separate prospective, randomized, phase II parallel design studies were conducted in patients with lung cancer. Fifty-eight and sixty-two patients scheduled to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), respectively, were randomized 1:1 to receive either standard antiemetic therapy in accordance with international guidelines (S group) or standard antiemetic therapy plus oral rikkunshito (R group). The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR)-that is, no emesis and rescue medication in the first 120 h post-chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included CR in the acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases and safety. Fifty-seven patients (S group, 28; R group, 29) receiving HEC and sixty-two patients (S group, 30; R group, 32) receiving MEC with comparable characteristics were evaluated. The CR rates were similar across the S and R groups for the HEC study in the overall (67.9% vs. 62.1%), acute (96.4% vs. 89.6%), and delayed (67.9% vs. 62.1%) phases, respectively, and for the MEC study in the overall (83.3% vs. 84.4%), acute (100% vs. 100%), and delayed (83.3% vs. 84.4%) phases, respectively. No severe adverse events were observed. Although rikkunshito was well tolerated, it did not demonstrate an additional preventative effect against CINV in lung cancer patients receiving HEC or MEC. Clinical Trial Registry Information: This study is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trial Registry, identification numbers UMIN 000014239 and UMIN 000014240.

Palonosetron compared with ondansetron in pediatric cancer patients: multicycle analysis of a randomized Phase III study

Aim: To investigate across multiple cycles the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC). Patients & methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 10, 20 μg/kg palonosetron or 3 × 150 μg/kg ondansetron for up to four cycles of HEC/MEC. Results: In all on-study chemotherapy cycles, complete response rates were higher in patients in the 20 μg/kg palonosetron group than the ondansetron group. Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between the palonosetron 20 μg/kg and ondansetron groups. Conclusion: Over four cycles of HEC/MEC, 20 μg/kg palonosetron was an efficacious and safe treatment for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients.

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life and is perceived by patients as a major adverse effect of the treatment. This review summarizes the safety and efficacy of current antiemetic agents for the prevention of CINV in children. Information on antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV in children was obtained from a literature review of current peer-reviewed articles and recent international guidelines. The literature review and the international antiemetic guidelines provide recommendations for use of specific antiemetics in children based on the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy. 5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists have been safe and effective in the prevention of acute emesis with a few patients experiencing mild headache. No adequate studies have been conducted to date for specific recommendations for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in children. The neurokinin (NK)-₁ receptor antagonist aprepitant has been approved by the US FDA for use in children of a specific age and weight. No studies for the NK₁ receptor antagonists netupitant and rolapitant in children have been conducted. Olanzapine, an antipsychotic, has been shown to be safe and effective in preventing nausea and emesis in adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Its use in children has been limited to children with poor control of CINV; more studies are necessary in this population. In conclusion, practitioners should follow international antiemetic guidelines to provide patients with the specific antiemetics in the recommended dose for the highest possible quality of care.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children

PURPOSE

To update the 2009 recommendations for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced emesis in children.

METHODS

We updated the original systematic literature search. Randomized studies were included in the evidence to support this guideline if they were primary studies fully published in full text in English or French; included only children less than 18 years old or, for mixed studies of adults and children, reported the pediatric results separately or the median or mean age was no more than 13 years; evaluated acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis; provided sufficient information to permit determination of the emetogenicity of the antineoplastic therapy administered or the study investigators stated the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy administered; included an implicit or explicit definition of complete acute CINV response; described the antiemetic regimen in full; and reported the complete acute CINV response rate as a proportion.

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized studies, including eight published since 2009, met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 antagonist (granisetron or ondansetron or palonosetron or tropisetron) ± dexamethasone ± aprepitant is recommended for children receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. For children receiving chemotherapy of low emetogenicity, a 5-HT3 antagonist is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of several randomized trials were used to update recommendations for the prevention of acute CINV. However, significant research gaps remain and must be addressed before CINV control in children can be optimized.

Characterization of Dronabinol Usage in a Pediatric Oncology Population

OBJECTIVES

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important side effect associated with administration of chemotherapy in pediatrics. The aim of this study was to retrospectively review dronabinol use in a pediatric cancer center, with the intent of characterizing its use and identifying trends such as age, sex, diagnosis, and chemotherapy that describe where dronabinol is best used as an adjuvant antiemetic.

METHODS

Patients receiving dronabinol at Riley Hospital for Children between 2000 and 2010 were identified. Patients eligible for inclusion were those with malignancy ≤18 years old, who received at least 1 dose of dronabinol for CINV during admission.

RESULTS

Ninety-five percent of patients received moderate or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. When dronabinol doses were analyzed, 95% of patients received doses that were lower than reference guidelines, 55% received dronabinol as a scheduled medication, and 19% received dronabinol 1 to 3 hours before chemotherapy. Overall, 60% of patients had a defined positive response to dronabinol. Sixty-five percent of patients received repeat courses of dronabinol, and 62% received outpatient prescriptions for dronabinol.

CONCLUSIONS

Dronabinol appears to be a viable option as an adjuvant antiemetic in pediatric CINV, but a prospective trial using patients as their own controls is necessary to truly define dronabinol's place in therapy.

Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.

Predictors of antiemetic alteration in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia

BACKGROUND

Better knowledge of patient and cancer treatment factors associated with nausea/vomiting (NV) in pediatric oncology patients could enhance prophylaxis. We aimed to describe such factors in children receiving treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

METHODS

Retrospective longitudinal cohort study of 1,668 hospitalized children undergoing treatment for AML from the Pediatric Health Information System database (39 hospitals, 1999-2010). Antiemetic alteration, which included switch (a change in prescribed 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists) and rescue (receipt of an adjunct antiemetic), were first validated and then used as surrogates of problematic NV. Logistic and negative binomial regression modeling were used to test whether patient characteristics were associated with problematic NV.

RESULTS

Increasing age is associated with greater odds of experiencing antiemetic switch and higher relative rate of antiemetic rescue. Within a treatment cycle, each consecutive inpatient chemotherapy day decreased the likelihood of requiring antiemetic alteration. Each consecutive inpatient-day post-chemotherapy was associated with decreased need for switch, but increased need for rescue. Subsequent cycles of AML therapy were associated with lower odds of antiemetic switch on both chemotherapy and non-chemotherapy days, a lower rate of antiemetic rescue on chemotherapy days, and an increased rate of rescue on non-chemotherapy days.

CONCLUSION

In pediatric patients with AML, increasing age is strongly associated with greater antiemetic alteration. Antiemetic alteration occurs early in treatment overall, and early within each admission. While additional cycles of therapy are associated with less alteration overall, there is persistent rescue in the days after chemotherapy, suggesting additional etiologies of NV in pediatric cancer patients.

Safety and efficacy of aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients: a prospective, observational study

Pediatric patients between the ages of 12 months and 17 years with a confirmed malignancy who were scheduled to receive aprepitant as part of triple therapy antiemetic prophylaxis for a cycle of moderately- or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were eligible for enrollment. Patients were evaluated for the incidence of nausea, episodes of emesis, interference with activities of daily living (ADLs), and appetite through utilization of a patient survey. Eleven patients were enrolled for a total of 20 patient encounters, mean age 9.55 ± 4.85 (range, 12 months-17 years). Aprepitant was well-tolerated and complete response (CR) rate was 38.9%.

Comparison of granisetron plus dexamethasone versus an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting in children

Background:

Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most disturbing side-effects in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess whether the addition of an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine to granisetron plus dexamethasone combination could ameliorate CINV in this study.

Patients and Methods:

A total of 23 children aged between 1 and 16 years to receive cisplatin containing chemotherapy in our clinic were included in this study from April 2007 to April 2008. 76 cycles in 23 patients were randomly assigned to receive either antiemetic regimen 1 or antiemetic regimen 2. Antiemetic regimen 1 containing granisetron 0, 04 mg/kg plus dexamethasone 0, 2 mg/kg were given in 45 chemotherapy cycles. In 31 cycles, an antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam 0, 04 mg/kg, diphenhyramine 2, 5 mg/-kg in addition to granisetron plus dexamethasone was given. Number of vomiting, severity of nausea, the use of rescue therapy and adverse events were assessed between day 1 and day 5.

Results:

Complete response for the acute phase was observed 38/45 (84, 4%) cycles in regimen 1 as compared with 28/31 (90, 3%) in regimen 2, antiemetic cocktail regimen (P > 0.05). Complete response for delayed emesis after 24 h of the beginning of chemotherapy was observed in 29/45 (64, 4 %) in regimen 1 and 16/31 (51, 6%) in regimen 2. Antiemetic cocktail was not superior to the granisetron plus dexamethasone combination in controlling emesis in acute and delayed phase. Furthermore, patients receiving antiemetic regimen 2 were noted significantly more side effects.

Conclusion:

Our data showed that antiemetic cocktail containing midazolam and diphenhydramine was not better in controlling acute and delayed emesis. A slightly more toxicity with additional drugs was also observed.

Comparative effectiveness research in antineoplastic-induced nausea and vomiting control in children

Antineoplastic-induced nausea and vomiting (AINV) is one of the most distressing adverse effects experienced by adult and pediatric patients receiving antineoplastic agents. Despite this, evidence of the efficacy and safety of antiemetic interventions in children is limited, and prevention and treatment approaches vary widely between centers. The purpose of this review is: first, to describe the barriers to comparative antiemetic effectiveness research in AINV control in children; second, to highlight limitations of the currently available pediatric AINV evidence; third, to summarize and discuss comparative effectiveness research specific to AINV control in children, with a focus on agents recommended in evidence-based guidelines developed for acute phase AINV control; and finally, to offer guidance regarding future comparative effectiveness research in this field.

SIOP PODC: recommendations for supportive care of children with cancer in a low-income setting

These supportive care recommendations were prepared to guide doctors who practice in areas with significantly limited resources but who have sufficient infrastructure and training to treat children with cancer with curative intent. The success of any cancer treatment regimen depends largely on the availability and quality of supportive care and this also determines the intensity of treatment that can be delivered. We present practical recommendations on how to prevent infections, general nursing care, management of febrile neutropenia, nutritional assessment and support, treatment of co-infections and the social support to help prevent failure to complete treatment in resource poor settings.

After the chemotherapy: potential mechanisms for chemotherapy-induced delayed skeletal muscle dysfunction in survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in childhood

There is evidence that survivors of childhood cancers, such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), have increased rates of long-term skeletal muscle dysfunction. This places them at higher risk of physical restriction and functional impairment as well as potentially contributing to observed increases in cardiovascular disease and insulin resistance in later life. The mechanisms underlying these changes in skeletal muscle are unknown but chemotherapy drugs used in treatment for ALL are strongly implicated. Normal skeletal muscle growth, development, and function are dependent on correctly functioning muscle satellite cells, muscle motor neurons, and muscle mitochondria. Each of these key components is potentially susceptible to damage by chemotherapy in childhood, particularly prolonged courses including repeated administration of combination chemotherapy. If this chemotherapy-induced damage is not fully reversible, impairment of satellite cells, muscle motor innervation, and mitochondria could, either singly or together, lead to the emergence of delayed or persistent skeletal muscle dysfunction many years later. The known effects of individual drugs used in the treatment of ALL are outlined and the need for specific targeted studies to investigate the mechanisms underlying persistent muscle dysfunction in survivors of ALL and other childhood cancers is highlighted.

Supportive care treatment guidelines: value, limitations, and opportunities

Evidence-based guidelines in clinical oncology practice are now prominent, with emphasis on clinical, health outcome and economic perspectives. Given the complexity of cancer management, a multidisciplinary approach is essential. Evidence-based guidelines to address supportive cancer care have merged expert opinion, systematic evaluation of clinical and research data, and meta-analyses of clinical trials. Production of supportive care guidelines by the interdisciplinary team is dependent on sufficient high-quality research studies. Once published, it is essential they be customized at institutional and national levels. Implementation in clinical practice is perhaps the greatest challenge. Optimal management occurs through integration of country-specific issues, including care access, healthcare resources, information technology, and national coordination of healthcare practices. The purpose of this article is to: (1) provide an overview of interdisciplinary cancer management using evidence-based guidelines; (2) delineate the theory and practice of guideline dissemination, utilization and outcome assessment; and (3) recommend future research strategies to maximize guidelines use in clinical practice.