Efficacy of olanzapine, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and thalidomide in combination with palonosetron plus dexamethasone in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

The evolving landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: inspiration from cisplatin-based antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the significant advancements in antiemetic regimens for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), over 40% of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy still experience CINV in clinical practice. To figure out underlying reasons and outline the landscape of antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV, our focus centered on cisplatin, one of the most commonly used highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs. We aimed to elucidate trends in CINV management by analyzing data extracted from cisplatin-based clinical trials.

METHODS

We extracted CINV-related data from 156 eligible randomized clinical trials, comprising 39 antiemetic trials and 117 non-antiemetic trials, all with patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Subsequently, we conducted separate analyses of the extracted CINV data within antiemetic and non-antiemetic trial groups, as well as comparisons between them.

RESULTS

Over the years, both antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials showed significant improvements in no-vomiting rates, although gains in no-nausea rates were more modest. Notably, antiemetic trials frequently underreported outcomes related to nausea control. There was a distinct yet gradually narrowing disparity in vomiting control rates between antiemetic and non-antiemetic trials during the same time frame. While non-antiemetic trials achieved comparable CINV control rates using the same antiemetic regimen as antiemetic trials, they exhibited significantly greater variations in no-vomiting and no-nausea rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The landscape of CINV management in cisplatin-based chemotherapy has evolved significantly alongside improvements in antiemetic agents. Substantial progress has been made in emesis control within both antiemetic and non-antiemetic cisplatin-based clinical trials. More attention should be paid on the chemotherapy induced nausea, and multiple approaches are needed to increase guideline adherence in future clinical practice.

Anti-emetic effects of thalidomide: Evidence, mechanism of action, and future directions

The rationale for using thalidomide (THD) as a treatment for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy in the late 1950s appears to have been based on its sedative or hypnotic properties. In contrast to contemporaneous studies on the anti-emetic activity of phenothiazines, we were unable to identify publications reporting preclinical or clinical evaluation of THD as an anti-emetic. Our survey of the literature revealed a clinical study in 1965 showing THD reduced vomiting in cancer chemotherapy which was substantiated by similar studies from 2000, particularly showing efficacy in the delayed phase of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. To identify the mechanism(s) potentially involved in thalidomide's anti-emetic activity we reviewed its pharmacology in the light of nausea and vomiting mechanisms and their pharmacology with a particular emphasis on chemotherapy and pregnancy. The process identified the following potential mechanisms: reduced secretion of Growth Differentiation Factor 15, suppression of inflammation/prostaglandin production, downregulation of cytotoxic drug induced upregulation of iNOS, and modulation of BK (KCa1.1) channels and GABAA/glutamate transmission at critical points in the emetic pathways (nucleus tractus solitarius, area postrema). We propose ways to investigate these hypothesized mechanisms and discuss the associated challenges (e.g., objective quantification of nausea) in addition to some of the more general aspects of developing novel drugs to treat nausea and vomiting.

Cost-effectiveness of palonosetron and dexamethasone-based triple and quadruple regimens in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

Cost-effectiveness analyses that consider all currently used antiemetics in the case of emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have not been performed yet. We aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine (OLA), or/and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1-RAs), in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) in preventing highly emetogenic CINV.

METHODS

Two decision analytic models were constructed. The first model was based on overall complete response (CR); the second model was based on rate of absence of nausea. Four antiemetic regimens PAL + DEX, NK-1-RAs + PAL + DEX, OLA + PAL + DEX, and PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA were compared in terms of cost, overall CR and rate of absence of nausea. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates were calculated. The study was from the US payer perspective.

RESULTS

In terms of CR, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest gains in the percentage of CR among all treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $4220 versus PAL + DEX, $4656 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $16,471 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. In term of rate of absence of nausea, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest rate of absence of nausea among all the treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $2291 versus PAL + DEX, $1304 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $2657 versus OLA + PAL + DEX.

CONCLUSION

from an economic perspective, our study revealed that whether to use overall CR or/and rate of absence of nausea as determinants in the antiemetic decision for the CINV patients, the CR-based-, and rate of absence of nausea-based cost-effectiveness analyses, showed negotiable ICER estimates for the treatment PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA over the combinations PAL + DEX, NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, and OLA + PAL + DEX regimens.

The Benefits of Olanzapine in Palliating Symptoms

OPINION STATEMENT

Olanzapine has become a major drug in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting as a prophylactic agent. In addition, a recent randomized trial has demonstrated its benefits in treating nausea and vomiting associated with advanced cancer. The added benefit to olanzapine is that it also stimulates appetite. As a result, since it treats multiple symptoms associated with advanced cancer, it is likely to become the antiemetic of choice in palliative care at least in the USA. The added benefit of treating insomnia and the avoidance of benzodiazepines should place olanzapine in at the top of the list of drugs to use for patients who do complain of insomnia. There is no good evidence that it potentiates the respiratory depression of opioids unlike benzodiazepines. The evidence is weak that olanzapine in as an adjuvant analgesic. Hopefully, future trials will explore this in greater depth. The benefits of adding olanzapine to potent opioids are that it may reduce craving, drug cues, and opioid misuse. Other symptoms like anxiety and depression may be addressed by the addition of olanzapine to standard antidepressants.