Delayed emesis: moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (single-day chemotherapy regimens only)

Intranasal Delivery of Granisetron to the Brain via Nanostructured Cubosomes-Based In Situ Gel for Improved Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Emesis

This research aimed to boost granisetron (GS) delivery to the brain via the intranasal route to better manage chemotherapy-induced emesis. Glycerol monooleate (GMO), Poloxamer 407 (P 407) and Tween 80 (T 80) were used to formulate GS-loaded cubosomes (GS-CBS) utilizing a melt dispersion-emulsification technique. GS-CBS were characterized by testing particle diameter, surface charge and entrapment efficiency. The formulations were optimized using a Box–Behnken statistical design, and the optimum formula (including GMO with a concentration of 4.9%, P 407 with a concentration of 10%, and T 80 with a concentration of 1%) was investigated for morphology, release behavior, ex vivo permeation through the nasal mucosa, and physical stability. Moreover, the optimal formula was incorporated into a thermosensitive gel and subjected to histopathological and in vivo biodistribution experiments. It demonstrated sustained release characteristics, increased ex vivo permeability and improved physical stability. Moreover, the cubosomal in situ gel was safe and biocompatible when applied to the nasal mucosa. Furthermore, compared to a drug solution, the nose-to-brain pathway enhanced bioavailability and brain distribution. Finally, the cubosomal in situ gel may be a potential nanocarrier for GS delivery to the brain through nose-to-brain pathway.

Low-dose olanzapine, sedation and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a prospective randomized controlled study

Aims: Comparison of efficacy, safety and sedation between two doses of olanzapine in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Patients & methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted, enrolling 68 patients receiving a single-day cycle of high and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received either of olanzapine 5 mg or 10 mg from day 1 through 3 in addition to ondansetron and dexamethasone. Control of CINV, nausea, sedation, quality of life (QoL) and adverse events were compared. Results: Nausea, emesis control and improvement of QoL were similar in both groups. Sedation severity was 133% higher with 10 mg olanzapine. Conclusions: Lower dose olanzapine is effective to control CINV with significantly reduced sedation.

Spray-Dried Silica Xerogel Nanoparticles as a Promising Gastroretentive Carrier System for the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Purpose

The current work aimed to develop spray-dried silica xerogel nanoparticles (SXNs) as a gastroretentive carrier for the dual delivery of chlorambucil (CHL) and granisetron hydrochloride (GR). As a low-density system, it was proposed to float over gastric fluids; allowing for the retention of CHL in the acidic medium where it is more stable while ensuring the solubility of GR.

Methods

Silica xerogels were developed by sol-gel process, using Tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) water and acetic acid, followed by spray drying. SXNs were evaluated for particle size, zeta potential, entrapment efficiency (EE%), CHL and GR release after 1 hr (P_1h) and after 8 hrs (P_8h). The best achieved system (SXN4) was evaluated for morphology, pore diameter, total porosity, bulk density, wetting time, floating characteristics. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetics of the loaded drugs were evaluated in rats; relative to an aqueous CHL suspension containing GR.

Results

SXN4 system had the highest desirability (0.69); showing spherical nanoparticles (181.63 nm), negative zeta potential (−5.18 mV), promising EE% of 59.39% and 73.94% (for CHL and GR, respectively) and sustained CHL and GR release profiles characterized by low P_1h (22.75% and 30.74%) and high P_8h (60.36% and 99.33%), respectively. It had a mean pore diameter of 8.622 nm, a total porosity of 62.27%, a bulk density of 0.605 g/mL, a wetting time of 292 sec, zero lag time and a floating duration of at least 8 h.

Conclusion

The prolongation in the mean residence time (MRT_(0-∞)) and the promotion of the relative oral bioavailabilities of both drugs could unravel the potential of this system for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children with cancer: Still waiting for a common consensus on treatment

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common treatment side-effects, and remains a significant concern, in children undergoing chemotherapy. Although adult patients receive chemotherapy regimens combined with appropriate standardized antiemetic treatment, children can receive markedly varying antiemetic treatments. A narrative review of CINV was performed regarding CINV definition, scoring system, prevention and treatment, specifically focussing on studies conducted with paediatric oncology patients. The review highlighted a lack of rigorously developed CINV scoring systems and standardized CINV pharmacological treatment for paediatric oncology patients. Different scoring systems were found to identify potential risk factors for CINV associated with the use of several different antiemetic drugs, however, few studies have been performed in children undergoing chemotherapy. Thus, CINV remains a distressing and partially controlled side-effect in the paediatric patient population. To reduce emesis and improve quality of life in paediatric oncology patients, standardized antiemetic treatment may be preferred, using a unique CINV scoring system that accounts for the emetogenic level of the chemotherapy regimen adopted and the children's clinical characteristics.

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

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

Slow-release granisetron (APF530) versus palonosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting: analysis by American Society of Clinical Oncology emetogenicity criteria

BACKGROUND

APF530 is a novel sustained-release formulation of granisetron. In a Phase III trial, APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron 0.25 mg in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and delayed CINV after MEC, but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Emetogenicity was classified by Hesketh criteria; this reanalysis uses newer American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria.

METHODS

Complete responses (no emesis or rescue medication) after cycle one were reanalyzed after reclassification of MEC and HEC by American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria.

RESULTS

APF530 maintained noninferiority to palonosetron.

CONCLUSION

Single-dose APF530 is a promising alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC. The Clinicaltrials.gov identifier for this study is NCT00343460.

QoL evaluation of olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting comparing with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist

This study evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and improving the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer during chemotherapy. Two hundred twenty-nine patients with cancer who received chemotherapy from January 2008 to August 2008 were enrolled, and they were randomised to receive olanzapine or a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. The patients completed a CINV questionnaire once daily on days 1-5 and a QoL questionnaire on days 0 and 6. The complete response (CR) rates for nausea (76.85% versus 46.2%) and vomiting (84.3% versus 67.6%) were significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist group for delayed CINV but not for acute CINV. The CR rates for nausea (76.85% versus 44.44%) and vomiting (85.95% versus 67.59%) were also significantly higher in the olanzapine group for the 5 days post-chemotherapy. After chemotherapy, global health status, emotional functioning, and insomnia were improved in the olanzapine group but worsened in the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist group, whereas cognitive functioning and appetite loss were unchanged. Moreover, olanzapine significantly improved global health status, emotional functioning, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, and appetite loss. Olanzapine improved the QoL of patients with cancer during chemotherapy, in part by reducing the incidence of delayed CINV.

Comparison of an extended-release formulation of granisetron (APF530) versus palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority phase 3 trial

Purpose

Subcutaneous APF530 provides controlled sustained release of granisetron to prevent acute (0–24 h) and delayed (24–120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial compared APF530 and palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

Methods

Patients receiving single-day MEC or HEC received single-dose APF530 250 or 500 mg subcutaneously (SC) (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg. Primary objectives were to establish APF530 noninferiority to palonosetron for preventing acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC and to determine APF530 superiority to palonosetron for preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR [using CI difference for APF530 − palonosetron]). A lower confidence bound greater than −15 % indicated noninferiority.

Results

In the modified intent-to-treat population (MEC = 634; HEC = 707), both APF530 doses were noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV after MEC (CRs 74.8 % [−9.8, 9.3] and 76.9 % [−7.5, 11.4], respectively, vs. 75.0 % palonosetron) and after HEC (CRs 77.7 % [−11.5, 5.5] and 81.3 % [-7.7, 8.7], respectively, vs. 80.7 % palonosetron). APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV after MEC (CR 58.5 % [−9.5, 12.1] vs. 57.2 % palonosetron) but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Adverse events were generally mild and unrelated to treatment, the most common (excluding injection-site reactions) being constipation.

Conclusions

A single subcutaneous APF530 injection offers a convenient alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC.

Supportive care during treatment for breast cancer: resource allocations in low- and middle-income countries. A Breast Health Global Initiative 2013 consensus statement

Breast cancer patients may have unmet supportive care needs during treatment, including symptom management of treatment-related toxicities, and educational, psychosocial, and spiritual needs. Delivery of supportive care is often a low priority in low- and middle-income settings, and is also dependent on resources available. This consensus statement describes twelve key recommendations for supportive care during treatment in low- and middle-income countries, identified by an expert international panel as part of the 5th Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) Global Summit for Supportive Care, which was held in October 2012, in Vienna, Austria. Panel recommendations are presented in a 4-tier resource-stratified table to illustrate how health systems can provide supportive care services during treatment to breast cancer patients, starting at a basic level of resource allocation and incrementally adding program resources as they become available. These recommendations include: health professional and patient and family education; management of treatment related toxicities, management of treatment-related symptoms of fatigue, insomnia and non-specific pain, and management of psychosocial and spiritual issues related to breast cancer treatment. Establishing supportive care during breast cancer treatment will help ensure that breast cancer patients receive comprehensive care that can help 1) improve adherence to treatment recommendations, 2) manage treatment-related toxicities and other treatment related symptoms, and 3) address the psychosocial and spiritual aspects of breast cancer and breast cancer treatments.

Current pharmacotherapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most frequent and troubling side effects patients experience during chemotherapy, interfering with compliance with cancer therapies and quality of life. While newly available treatments have improved our ability to manage nausea and vomiting, anticipatory and delayed nausea and vomiting are still major problems for patients receiving chemotherapy. Many cancer patients consider delaying future chemotherapy cycles and some contemplate stopping chemotherapy altogether because of their fear of experiencing further nausea and vomiting.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the pathopsychophysiology of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), the recommended guidelines for treatment, and current agents in late-stage clinical trials, and future research needs to address the continued challenges of treatment-related nausea and vomiting.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite advances in pharmaceutical and behavioral therapies, and the provision of standard clinical guidelines for effectively managing CINV, patients continue to experience it. Moreover, control of nausea, acute and delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting remains an important, unmet need among cancer patients. It is critical to focus attention on better understanding the mechanisms underlying nausea, anticipatory symptoms and delayed symptoms.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and the role of neurokinin 1 inhibitors: from guidelines to clinical practice in solid tumors

A significant proportion of cancer patients experience nausea or vomiting during the course of their disease, either because of the cancer itself or because of the treatment received. Highly or moderately emetogenic drugs are part of the standard chemotherapy regimens frequently used in patients with lung cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and several other common solid tumors. In this review, we describe the impact of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy, and the main progress achieved in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with the introduction of neurokinin 1 inhibitors. The adherence to existing guidelines is particularly important to avoid suboptimal prophylaxis and maximize patients' outcome. This review is focused on lung, breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer, which are among the solid tumors characterized by a numeric and clinical relevance of the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting issue because of the wide use of highly and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting During Chemotherapy

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most troubling side effects patients experience during chemotherapy. While newly available treatments have improved our ability to manage nausea and vomiting, anticipatory and delayed nausea and vomiting are still a major problem for patients receiving chemotherapy. Many cancer patients will delay or refuse future chemotherapy treatments and contemplate stopping chemotherapy altogether because of their fear of experiencing further nausea and vomiting. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the patho-psychophysiology of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and the recommended guidelines for treatment.