Single-dose intravenous casopitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of oxaliplatin-induced nausea and vomiting: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, two arm, parallel group study

A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial investigating the efficacy of low-dose olanzapine in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with oxaliplatin-based and irinotecan-based chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the clinical efficacy of a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) among female patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal tract tumors.

METHODS

Patients undergoing the oxaliplatin/irinotecan chemotherapy regimen were enrolled in this prospective controlled study. The olanzapine group received a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine along with palonosetron and dexamethasone, while the control group received a standard two-combination regimen consisting of dexamethasone and palonosetron. The primary endpoints included the total protection (TP) rates for the entire age group and the subgroup aged 60 years and above. Secondary endpoints encompassed the total protection rates during the acute and delayed phases within the two age brackets, as well as the total control (TC) rates and complete remission (CR) rates across all three phases (total, acute, and delayed). Additionally, the study involved the assessment of quality of life and the collection of adverse events associated with the interventions.

RESULTS

1) Regarding the primary endpoint, the total phase TP rates within both the entire age group and the age group exceeding 60 years demonstrated superiority in the olanzapine group when compared to the control group (66.7% vs 37.25%, P = 0.003; 68.8% vs 44.4%, P = 0.044). 2) In terms of secondary endpoints, the olanzapine group exhibited superior acute phase TP rates in both age brackets when compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The olanzapine group also demonstrated higher delayed-phase TP rates, TC rates across all three phases, and CR rates within the two age brackets, although the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the quality of life in the olanzapine group surpassed that of the control group for both age brackets (P < 0.05), characterized by enhanced appetite and a higher incidence of drowsiness in the patients treated with olanzapine when compared to those in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine can enhance CINV induced by MEC regimen in female patients across all age groups, including the elderly, and therefore improve the quality of life for these patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html , identifier: ChiCTR20000368269, 25/08/2020.

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis

AIM

The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1-2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet).

RESULTS

Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users.

CONCLUSION

In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.

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.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

MAIN RESULTS

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Effect of Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has an important role in the overall management of cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether adding aprepitant to palonosetron and dexamethasone can further prevent the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting caused by FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) or FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy regimens among women with gastrointestinal cancer at higher risk.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited young women (age ≤50 years) who drank little or no alcohol and had gastrointestinal cancer for which they received FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy. A total of 248 women were enrolled and assigned in the ratio 1:1 to intervention and control groups from August 4, 2015, to March 31, 2020. Intention-to-treat analysis was used to evaluate patient baseline characteristics and efficacy. The analysis was conducted on October 30, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to the aprepitant group (aprepitant, 125 mg, orally 60 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg orally each morning of days 2 and 3; palonosetron, 0.25 mg, intravenously; and dexamethasone, 6 mg, orally 30 minutes before chemotherapy initiation on day 1) or the placebo group (placebo, 125 mg, orally 60 minutes before initiation of chemotherapy on day 1 and 80 mg orally on each morning of days 2 and 3; palonosetron, 0.25 mg, intravenously; and dexamethasone, 12 mg, orally 30 minutes before chemotherapy initiation on day 1).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the complete response (CR) rate, defined as the proportion of patients without emesis episodes or rescue medication use during the overall phase of the first cycle. Other efficacy indicators, such as no vomiting and no nausea, were measured as the secondary and exploratory end points.

RESULTS

A total of 248 women from 4 clinical centers in China entered this study, and 243 patients (aprepitant regimen, 125 patients [51.4%]; placebo regimen, 118 patients [48.5%]) were evaluable for efficacy and safety; mean (SD) age of the total population was 40.1 (7.3) years. The CR rate was significantly higher in the aprepitant group vs the control group overall (107 [87.0%] vs 80 [66.7%]; P < .001) and in the acute (114 [92.7%] vs 91 [75.8%]; P = .001) and delayed (109 [88.6%] vs 84 [70.0%]; P = .001) phases of the trial. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (100 [80.0%] vs 96 [81.3%]; P = .79), and no grade 3 or 4 aprepitant treatment-related adverse events were observed. Multivariable analysis revealed that aprepitant use was the only independent factor associated with CR during the overall phase.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The combination of aprepitant with palonosetron and dexamethasone provided increased antiemetic efficacy in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen and was well tolerated by younger women with gastrointestinal cancer who have a history of little or no alcohol consumption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03674294.

The efficacy of aprepitant in salvage treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for patients with gastrointestinal cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of aprepitant and its effect on the quality of life when added to standard antiemetic therapy as salvage therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is an open-label, noncomparative prospective phase II clinical trial. A total of 224 patients receiving initial moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) were enrolled. Patients received standard antiemetic treatment (5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) antagonists + dexamethasone) in the first cycle. Patients failing to achieve a complete response (CR) during cycle 1 entered cycle 2 with the addition of aprepitant as salvage treatment.

RESULTS

Of the 224 patients eligible for cycle 1, 159 (71.0%, 95% CI 65.0-77.0) had a CR, and 65 patients with a noncomplete response (NCR) proceeded to cycle 2 to receive aprepitant-based salvage therapy. Then, 49 (75.4%, 95% CI 64.6-84.1) of these patients achieved a CR. The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire showed that NCR patients in cycle 1 had an improved quality of life after receiving aprepitant-based salvage therapy in cycle 2 (cycle 1 and 2: 80.3 vs 114.0, P < 0.001). Failing to achieve a CR had a significant impact on the quality of life in both cycle 1 (FLIE score of NCR and CR patients: 80.3 vs 119.7, P < 0.001) and cycle 2 (FLIE score of NCR and CR patients: 88.3 vs 122.4, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of aprepitant as salvage therapy for patients with gastrointestinal cancer is effective and has a positive effect on quality of life.

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.

Optimal prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a meta-analysis

AIM

We compare neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK-1RA)-based triple regimen and conventional duplex regimen for antiemetic efficacy for patients with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Patients & methods: Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were used to evaluate the complete response and no significant nausea. The results were separately analyzed for pure MEC regimens, carboplatin-based regimens and oxaliplatin-based regimens.

RESULTS

Ten trials focused on MEC involving 2928 cancer patients using NK-1RA triple regimens or conventional duplex regimen were included. NK-1RA-based triple regimen showed significant better complete responses in overall (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.05-1.24), acute (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.00-1.04) and delayed (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04-1.23) phase compared with duplex regimen in patients with MEC. Similar results were found for no significant nausea. Subgroup analyses showed that triple regimen showed superior antiemetic efficacy significantly in patients with carboplatin-based chemotherapy, instead of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

NK-1RA is recommended to use in carboplatin-based chemotherapy, not oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

Olanzapine-Based Triple Regimens Versus Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current antiemetic prophylaxis for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) included the olanzapine-based triplet and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs)-based triplet. However, which one shows better antiemetic effect remained unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 43 trials, involving 16,609 patients with HEC, which compared the following antiemetics at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: olanzapine, aprepitant, casopitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved no nausea, complete response (CR), and drug-related adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Olanzapine-based triple regimens showed significantly better no-nausea rate in overall phase and delayed phase than aprepitant-based triplet (odds ratios 3.18, 3.00, respectively), casopitant-based triplet (3.78, 4.12, respectively), fosaprepitant-based triplet (3.08, 4.10, respectively), rolapitant-based triplet (3.45, 3.20, respectively), and conventional duplex regimens (4.66, 4.38, respectively). CRs of olanzapine-based triplet were roughly equal to different NK-1RAs-based triplet but better than the conventional duplet. Moreover, no significant drug-related adverse events were observed in olanzapine-based triple regimens when compared with NK-1RAs-based triple regimens and duplex regimens. Additionally, the costs of olanzapine-based regimens were obviously much lower than the NK-1RA-based regimens.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine-based triplet stood out in terms of nausea control and drug price but represented no significant difference of CRs in comparison with NK-1RAs-based triplet. Olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice for patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed phase nausea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

According to the results of this study, olanzapine-based triple antiemetic regimens were superior in both overall and delayed-phase nausea control when compared with various neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists-based triple regimens in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine-based triplet was outstanding in terms of nausea control and drug price. For cancer patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed-phase nausea, olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice.

Neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: focus on fosaprepitant

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

Is the addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist beneficial in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) excluding anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based regimens.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed and OVID) and Central databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT₃ RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy endpoints were complete response (CR), no emesis and no nausea rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials (3848 patients) were identified. Results were separately analyzed for (a) pure MEC regimens (excluding regimens containing carboplatin or oxaliplatin), (b) carboplatin-based regimens, and (c) oxaliplatin-based regimens. (a) Two trials (abstracts) enrolled 715 patients. The odds ratio for overall CR with the addition of an NK1-RA was 1.46 (95% 1.06-2.02; p = 0.02) with an absolute risk difference (RD) of 8%. (b) Nine trials (1790 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.96 (95% CI 1.57-2.45; p < 0.00001) in favor of the NK1RA containing regimen with an RD of 15%. (c) Three trials (1190 patients) were identified. The OR for achieving an overall CR was 1.34 (95% CI 0.88-2.04; p = 0.17) not reaching statistical significance with a RD of 4%.

CONCLUSION

Clear clinically significant benefit was seen with the addition of NK1RAs in carboplatin-based chemotherapy. A global benefit of an NK1RA containing regimen for the whole MEC category cannot be attested yet and warrants more randomized trials exclusively testing pure MEC regimens without carboplatin.

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.

Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist-Based Triple Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) are widely used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Whether the efficacy and toxicity of antiemesis are different among various NK-1RA-based triple regimens is unknown.

Methods

Data of complete responses (CRs) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted from electronic databases. Efficacy and toxicity were integrated by pairwise and network meta-analyses.

Results

Thirty-six trials involving 18 889 patients using triple regimens (NK-1RA+serotonin receptor antagonists [5HT3RA] + dexamethasone) or duplex regimen (5HT3RA+dexamethasone) to control CINV were included in the analysis. Different NK-1RA-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CRs. In patients with HEC, almost all triple regimens showed statistically significantly higher CRs than duplex regimen (odds ratio [OR]duplex/triple = 0.47-0.66). However, in patients with MEC, only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better effect than duplex regimen statistically significantly in CRs (ORduplex/triple = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34 to 0.68). No statistically significant difference of TRAEs was found among different triple regimens. Palonosetron-based triple regimens were equivalent to first-generation 5HT3RAs-based triple regimens for CRs. Moreover, different doses of dexamethasone plus NK-1RA and 5HT3RA showed no statistically significant difference in CRs.

Conclusions

Different NK-1RAs-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CINV control. Various triple regimens had superior antiemetic effect than duplex regimen in patients with HEC. Only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better CINV control compared with duplex regimen in patients receiving MEC. Palonosetron and first-generation 5HT3RAs might share equivalent CINV control in the combination of NK-1RAs and dexamethasone. Lower doses of dexamethasone might be applied when used with NK-1RAs and 5HT3RAs.

Efficacy analysis of the aprepitant-combined antiemetic prophylaxis for non-round cell soft-tissue sarcoma patients received adriamycin and ifosfamide therapy

Appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with non-round cell soft-tissue sarcomas (NRC-STS) remains unclear. We retrospectively investigated efficacy and safety of aprepitant-combined antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with NRC-STS receiving adriamycin plus ifosfamide (AI) therapy. Forty NRC-STS patients were enrolled, their median age was 50 years (range 18-74), and 13 (32.5%) were female. Median cycle number of AI therapy was 4. Twenty patients received the doublet antiemetic prophylaxis (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone), and 20 received triplet (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant). In the overall period, complete response rate for nausea and emesis in the triplet group was significantly higher than that in the doublet group (70% vs 35%; P = 0.027). Patients with no-emesis in the overall period were more frequently observed in the triplet group than in the doublet group (90% vs 65%; P = 0.058). All toxicities other than emesis were almost equivalent in both the groups. These results suggest that a triplet antiemetic prophylaxis may be optimal in the treatment with AI therapy for NRC-STS.

2016 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

An update of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy published after the last MASCC/ESMO antiemetic consensus conference in 2009 has been carried out.

METHODS

A systematic literature search using PubMed from January 1, 2009 to January 6, 2015 with a restriction to papers in English was conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, two randomized phase II and seven randomized phase III studies plus the results of three subgroup analysis of large phase III trials and those of a pilot study have been included.

CONCLUSIONS

In carboplatin-treated patients, a moderate benefit from adding an NK1 receptor antagonist to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist has been shown. However, in oxaliplatin-treated patients, contrasting results about the role of NK1 receptor antagonists have been obtained. At present, it is not possible to suggest a specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to use for the prevention of acute emesis in these patients. No routine prophylaxis for delayed emesis is recommended but in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy with known potential for delayed emesis (e.g., oxaliplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) the use of dexamethasone for days 2-3 can be considered.

Defining the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in different emetogenic settings-a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) across different categories of chemotherapeutic emetogenicity.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed) and OVID databases, plus major oncology conferences, identified randomized, controlled trials evaluating NK1RAs in combination with a 5-HT3 RA plus a glucocorticoid for management of CINV. Efficacy end points were no emesis, no nausea, and complete response (CR) rates. Data were analyzed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials (N = 11,814) were identified. Based on absolute differences (AD) for no emesis (21 %), no nausea (8 %), CR (16 %), and odd ratios (OR) of 2.62, 1.43, and 2.16, respectively, NK1RA regimens provided better CINV protection versus control groups (all p < 0.00001) in patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In patients receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC)-based HEC, respective ADs and ORs were 14, 4, and 11 % and 1.97 (p < 0.0001), 1.17 (p = 0.04), and 1.62 (p < 0.00001). In patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (3 trials), no statistically significant benefit of NK1RAs was found; however, positive trends were detected for CR and no emesis. NK1RAs were effective for CINV prevention in a small number of studies using high-dose chemotherapy as conditioning prior to stem cell transplant and cisplatin-based multiple-day chemotherapy (MDC).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of NK1RA in preventing vomiting in patients receiving HEC (including AC), with smaller effects on prevention of nausea. Efficacy is also seen with high-dose chemotherapy and cisplatin-based MDC.

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.

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant: a 10-year review of efficacy and safety

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

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting : focus on newer agents and new uses for older agents

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. The use of a combination of a serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and a neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist has significantly improved the control of acute and delayed emesis in single-day chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a different half-life, a different binding capacity and a different mechanism of action than the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists appears to be the most effective agent in its class. Aprepitant, the first and only agent clinically available in the NK1 receptor antagonist drug class has been used effectively as an additive agent to the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to control CINV. Rolapitant and netupitant are other NK1 receptor antagonists that are currently in phase III clinical trials. Despite the control of emesis, nausea has not been well controlled by current agents. Olanzapine, a US-FDA approved antipsychotic, has emerged in recent trials as an effective preventative agent for CINV, as well as a very effective agent for the treatment of breakthrough emesis and nausea. Clinical trials using gabapentin, cannabinoids and ginger have not been definitive regarding their efficacy in the prevention of CINV. Additional studies are necessary for the control of nausea and for the control of CINV in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

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.

Optimal dose period for indisetron tablets for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with modified FOLFOX6: a randomized pilot study

BACKGROUND

Indisetron is a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine type 3) receptor antagonist that also antagonizes 5-hydroxytryptamine type 4 receptors. We designed a pilot study in order to explore the optimal dosing period for indisetron during modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-two chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced colorectal cancer scheduled to receive mFOLFOX6 were randomly assigned to either a 1- or 3-day indisetron regimen arm. The primary endpoint was complete protection from vomiting.

RESULTS

Proportions of patients with complete protection from vomiting were 85.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 63.7-97.0] with the 3-day regimen and 81.0% (95% CI 58.1-94.6) with the 1-day regimen. Proportions of patients with complete protection from nausea were 47.6% in each arm (95% CI 25.7-70.2). No rescue therapy rates were 66.7% (95% CI 43.0-85.4) versus 57.1% (95% CI 34.0-78.2). No severe adverse events were observed in either arm.

CONCLUSION

Both 1- and 3-day indisetron regimens were feasible for preventing nausea and vomiting induced by mFOLFOX6.