Efficacy and safety of triple therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin-based chemotherapy for gynecological cancer: KCOG-G1003 phase II trial

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.

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

Purpose

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

Summary

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

Conclusion

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

Evaluation of the efficacy of palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gastric cancer treated with S-1 plus cisplatin

PURPOSE

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new combination antiemetic therapy consisting of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone in gastric cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with S-1 plus cisplatin.

METHODS

This prospective, multi-institutional observational study assessed patient-reported nausea, vomiting, use of rescue therapy, change of dietary intake, and Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire results. The percentages of patients showing complete response (CR; no emesis and non-use of any rescue antiemetics) and complete protection (CP; no significant nausea and non-use of any rescue antiemetics), change of dietary intake, and impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily life during the overall (0-120 h after cisplatin administration), acute (0-24 h), and delayed (24-120 h) phases were examined. These findings were compared with our previous study, which used granisetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone, to assess the relative effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in combination antiemetic therapy.

RESULTS

Of the 72 included patients, 66 (91.6 %), 70 (97.2 %), and 50 (69.1 %) achieved CR, and 48 (66.7 %), 61 (84.7 %) and 49 (68.1 %) achieved CP during in the overall, acute, and delayed phases of cisplatin administration, respectively. Approximately half of the patients had some degree of anorexia. FLIE results indicated that 78.6 % of patients maintained their quality of life. Palonosetron was not superior to granisetron in combination antiemetic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-drug combination antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was tolerable in gastric cancer patients undergoing treatment with S-1 plus cisplatin. The predominance of palonosetron to granisetron was not demonstrated in this study.

Combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone as primary antiemetic prophylaxis for cisplatin-based chemotherapy

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of combined treatment with the long-acting 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor-3 antagonist, palonosetron, the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, oral aprepitant, and dexamethasone as primary antiemetic prophylaxis for cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Methods

Chemotherapy-naïve patients received the triple combination of palonosetron (0.25 mg), aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3), and dexamethasone (20 mg) from the beginning of highly emetogenic chemotherapy with cisplatin-based (≥50 mg/m²) regimens. The primary endpoint was a complete response (no emetic episodes and no rescue antiemetics) during the days 1–6.

Results

Sixty-nine hospitalized patients receiving chemotherapy from September 2012 to October 2014 were analyzed. Complete response of vomiting and nausea-free was achieved in 97.1% and 85.5% of patients in the first cycle, respectively, and 96.7% and 83.6% of patients in the second cycle, respectively. Common adverse events in all 69 patients included constipation (43%), hiccup (26%), and headache (4%).

Conclusion

The combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone as primary antiemetic prophylaxis for cancer patients with highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy is effective.

Efficacy of Olanzapine Combined Therapy for Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy Resistant to Standard Antiemetic Therapy

Objective. Olanzapine is proved to be effective for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). But its efficacy in combination with standard antiemetic therapy is unknown. The purpose of this study is to prove the preventive effect of olanzapine for the prevention of CINV caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy when used with standard antiemetic therapy. Method. Gynecologic cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy who had grade 2 or 3 nausea in overall phase (0–120 h after chemotherapy) despite standard therapy were assigned to this study. From the next cycles to cycles in which patients developed grade 2 or 3 nausea, they received olanzapine with standard therapy. 5 mg oral olanzapine was administered for 7 days from the day before chemotherapy. The effectiveness of preventive administration of olanzapine was evaluated retrospectively. The primary endpoint was nausea control rate (grade 0 or 1) with olanzapine. Results. Fifty patients were evaluable. The nausea control rate with olanzapine was improved from 58% to 98% in acute phase (0–24 h after chemotherapy) and 2% to 94% in delayed phase (24–120 h after chemotherapy). In overall phase, the nausea control rate improved from 0% to 92%, and it was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Conclusion. Preventive use of olanzapine combined with standard antiemetic therapy showed improvement in control of refractory nausea.

Comparative evaluation of triplet antiemetic schedule versus doublet antiemetic schedule in chemotherapy-induced emesis in head and neck cancer patients

PURPOSE

To compare the antiemetic combination of palonosetron, dexamethasone, and aprepitant (PDA) with antiemetic combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone (OD) in head and neck cancer patients receiving docetaxel, carboplatin, and 5-FU based chemotherapy.

METHODS

Sixty previously untreated patients were randomly divided into two groups of thirty patients each. The PDA group received a combination of palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously (IV), dexamethasone 12 mg IV, and capsule aprepitant per oral. OD group received ondansetron 16 mg IV, and dexamethasone 12 mg IV for emesis control. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of two antiemetic schedules for preventing acute and delayed CINV (chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR).

RESULTS

All the patients tolerated both schedules well. The antiemetic response for acute emesis (first 24 hours) in PDA versus OD group was: CR was 86.7 versus 60%. For delayed emesis (from day 2-5) in PDA versus OD group CR was 83.3 versus 53.3%. The intensity of acute nausea (first 24 hours) in PDA versus OD group was: no nausea-70 versus 46.6%. The intensity of delayed nausea (from day 2-5) in PDA versus OD was: no nausea-76.6 versus 43.3%. The CR to both acute and delayed emesis (no vomiting from day 1-5) in PDA versus OD group was 83.3 versus 53.3% (p < 0.05, significant). The CR to nausea (no nausea from day 1-5) in PDA versus OD group was 70 versus 43.3% (p < 0.05, significant).

CONCLUSION

Although both the schedules were tolerated well, the PDA schedule (palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone) was significantly better than the OD schedule (ondansetron and dexamethasone) in controlling cancer CINV in the acute as well as delayed phases.

Open-label observational study to assess the efficacy and safety of aprepitant for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Indian patients receiving chemotherapy with highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens

Context:

Currently, there is limited data on the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in Indian population with aprepitant containing regimens.

Aims:

The aim was to assess the Efficacy and Safety of Aprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) regimens.

Settings and Design:

Investigator initiated, multicentric, open-label, prospective, noncomparative, observational trial.

Subjects and Methods:

Triple drug regimen with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasaone administration was assessed for the prevention of CINV during acute, delayed, and the overall phase (OP) for HEC/MEC Regimens. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) and the key secondary endpoint was the complete control (CC; no emesis, no rescue medication and no more than mild nausea) during the OP.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Perprotocol efficacy was analyzed for the first cycle with results represented in terms of CR/CC rates using descriptive statistics.

Results:

Seventy-five patients were included in the study with median age of 49.7 years and 89.7% being females. The CR rate (OP) for patients administered HEC or MEC regimens during the first cycle were 92% and 90.9%, respectively. Similarly, the CC rates (OP) were 75% and 90% for these regimens, respectively. 7 (9.2%) patients reported adverse drug reactions that were mild and transient with no reports of any serious adverse events.

Conclusions:

Use of aprepitant containing regimen for patients receiving HEC/MEC regimen resulted in significantly high CR and CC response rates, which further consolidate its potential role to improve patient quality of life and compliance to disease management.