Corticosteroids, dopamine antagonists and other drugs

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Narrative Review to Inform Dietetics Practice

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common symptoms experienced by patients with cancer that influence nutrition. They exert a detrimental effect on dietary intake, risk of malnutrition, and quality of life. Whereas CINV are primarily managed with medication, nutrition and dietetics practitioners play an important role in the management of CINV-related complications such as reduced dietary intake. This review discusses the burden of nausea and vomiting that patients with cancer can experience, including the effect on quality of life, nutritional status, and treatment outcomes. Implications for dietetics practice include the need to explore the nature of reported symptoms, identify predisposing risk factors, and to consider the use of a variety of interventions that are individualized to a patient's symptoms. There are little clinical data regarding effective dietetic interventions for nausea and vomiting. In summary, this review discusses dietetics-related issues surrounding CINV, including the pathophysiology, risk factors, prevalence, and both pharmacologic and dietetic treatment options.

Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Recent advances in pharmacotherapy of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting remain among the most feared side effects of chemotherapy for cancer patients. Significant progress has been made in the last 15 years in developing more effective and better-tolerated measures to minimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). During the 1990s, the selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists were first introduced for the treatment of CINV, and resulted in more effective and better tolerated treatment of CINV. Despite recent progress, however, a significant number of patients still develop CINV, particularly during the 2-5-day period (delayed emesis) following chemotherapy. There is evidence that this may be an underappreciated problem on the part of some caregivers. Recently, two new antiemetics, aprepitant, the first member of the neurokinin-1 antagonists, and palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist, received regulatory approval in the U.S. Both represent useful additions to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of CINV.

Single dose palonosetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by high emetogenic ABVD regimen in Hodgkin Lymphoma patients

To evaluate the efficacy of a new agent, palonosetron, in Hodgkin Lymphoma patients treated with ABVD regimen. Complete response during the overall phase of the first ABVD cycle, was the primary endpoint. Secondary end points were: emesis-free patients and use of rescue medication during the acute and overall phases. From January 2008 to February 2009 36 patients were enrolled. The primary endpoint (CR 0-120 h) was achieved by 55.6% patients. In conclusion our study demonstrated that a single dose of palonosetron plus a single dose of dexamethasone was effective in preventing CINV in patients treated with ABVD regimen.

Single-dose palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy containing steroids: results of a phase II study from the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dei Linfomi (GISL)

Purpose

The control of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy is paramount for overall treatment success in cancer patients. Antiemetic therapy during chemotherapy in lymphoma patients generally consists of anti-serotoninergic drugs and dexamethasone. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron, a second-generation serotonin type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist, in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) containing steroids.

Methods

Patients received a single intravenous bolus of palonosetron (0.25 mg) before administration of chemotherapy. Complete response (CR) defined as no vomiting and no rescue therapy during overall phase (0–120 h) was the primary endpoint. Complete control (CC) defined as CR and only mild nausea was a secondary endpoint.

Results

Eighty-six evaluable patients entered in the study. A CR was observed in 74 patients (86.0%) during the overall phase; the CR during the acute (0–24 h) and delayed (24–120 h) phases was 90.7% and 88.4%, respectively. CC was 89.5% during the acute and 84.9% during the delayed phase; the overall CC was 82.6%.

Conclusions

This was the first trial, which demonstrated the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron in control CINV in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma receiving MEC regimen containing steroids.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: contemporary approaches to optimal management. Proceedings from a symposium at the 2008 Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Annual Meeting

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remains a significant problem for cancer patients.

DISCUSSION

Patient factors such as polypharmacy, medication costs, mucositis, and depression may hinder good antiemetic control, while high workloads, poor communication, and underestimation of the problem on the part of healthcare professionals also play a role. Improving outcomes requires accurate assessment of risk factors, use of guidelines, and better adherence to antiemetic regimens.

CONCLUSION

Extended-release formulations and new delivery systems such as transdermal patches, nasal sprays, and pumps provide a new strategy that may improve patient outcomes.

[Chemotherapy induced emesis: pathophysiology and prevention]

Nausea and emesis are one of the most feared secondary effect of chemotherapy. The development of antiemetic therapies has increased after the introduction of cisplatin, a cytotoxin with the highest emetic potential. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been classified into acute, delayed and anticipatory based on the time of onset. According to the percentage of nausea and emesis without any antiemetic treatment, chemotherapy is divised into highly, moderate, low and very low emetic potential. The discovery of emetics stimuli neurotransmitters and their receptors has led to the introduction of new molecules which associated with steroids have prevented nausea and vomiting chemotherapy-induced for 70 to 80% of the patients receiving chemotherapy with high emetic potential. Numerous studies have evaluated the various antiemetics and recommendations were issued by learned societies in US and Europe. This text discusses the physiopathology of nausea and vomiting, the development of anti-emetics and the new discovered antiemetics. Finally, a synthesis of the recommandations from the guidelines developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is presented.

Evolving roles of oncology pharmacists in Singapore: a survey on prescribing patterns of antiemetics for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) at a cancer centre

BACKGROUND

National Cancer Centre (NCC) is currently the largest ambulatory oncology treatment centre in Singapore that treats mainly solid tumors and lymphomas. Oncology pharmacists at NCC play an active role in the management of CINV. In order to improve the clinical services delivered by pharmacy, particularly in the utilization of antiemetics, pharmacy department conducted a survey that aimed to understand the prescribing patterns of antiemetics for CINV.

OBJECTIVES

ves. The primary aim of this study was to describe medical oncologists' perceptions of factors that can influence prescribing of antiemetics for acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy. A secondary aim was to assess medical oncologists' perception of antiemetic counseling by oncology pharmacists.

METHODS

This was a single-centered, non-randomized survey conducted at NCC in Singapore. Twenty-seven oncologists in the Department of Medical Oncology (DMO) were invited to participate in this survey. Survey forms were distributed to the medical oncologists at weekly DMO and tumor board meetings in November 2006.

RESULTS

Twenty oncologists returned surveys during the study period. Most oncologists closely adhered to the institution guideline on antiemetics utilization; however, results showed a trend of overprescribing acute antiemetics for low emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Oncologists have identified anxiety, age and gender as the top three patient risk factors taken into consideration when they prescribe antiemetics. Majority of oncologists found pharmacists' counseling on antiemetics to be effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this survey, oncology pharmacists at NCC were able to identify areas of antiemetics utilization that needed refinement. Results from this survey provide opportunities for oncology pharmacists to collaborate with medical oncologists to further improve the management of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting.

Antiemetics: an update and the MASCC guidelines applied in clinical practice

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most severe problems for patients treated with chemotherapy. Until the late 1970s, nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy was an almost neglected research area. With the introduction of cisplatin, the cytotoxin with the highest emetic potential, research was stimulated and has now resulted in the development of two new classes of antiemetics, the serotonin and neurokinin antagonists. A large number of trials have fine-tuned antiemetic therapy and made evidence-based recommendations possible for the majority of patients receiving chemotherapy. This Review discusses the pathophysiology of nausea and vomiting, the development of antiemetics, highlights some of the newest antiemetics, and finally summarizes recommendations from the evidence-based guidelines developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer.

Anti-emetic therapy in cancer chemotherapy: current status

Nausea and vomiting are ranked as the most severe side effects to chemotherapy by cancer patients. Twenty years ago, treatment of nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy only had moderate effect and often unpleasant side effects. The drugs used included dopamine(2)-receptor antagonists and corticosteroids alone or combined. This review summarizes the development of anti-emetic therapy, but will focus on the importance of two new classes of anti-emetics: the serotonin(3)- and the neurokinin(1)-receptor antagonists. Furthermore, evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting will be given. The serotonin(3)-receptor antagonists, the first group of drugs developed specifically as anti-emetics, have significantly improved the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced emesis especially in combination with a corticosteroid. The improvement in the prophylaxis of nausea with this combination is however modest. A new group of anti-emetics, the neurokinin(1)-receptor antagonists, has now been developed, and the first drug, aprepitant, was marketed in 2003. Aprepitant increases the effect of a serotonin(3)-receptor antagonist plus a corticosteroid against acute emesis induced by highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and aprepitant is also active in the protection against delayed emesis. The importance of drug-drug interactions with anti-emetics and other drugs, especially cytotoxins, through their competition for cytochrome P450 enzymes, have been studied. At present, there is no evidence that such interactions are of major clinical importance. Evidence-based clinical guidelines are now available and regularly updated, but unfortunately clinical implementation is slow. Recommendations for some types of chemotherapy-induced emesis such as delayed emesis, is based on a low level of evidence. Furthermore, the majority of clinical trials include highly selected groups of patients not permitting definite conclusions for other and more heterogeneous patient groups. Development of new anti-emetics with other mechanisms of action is awaited with interest.

Randomized, double-blind trial comparing the antiemetic effect of tropisetron plus metopimazine with tropisetron plus placebo in patients receiving multiple cycles of multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

To compare the antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of tropisetron plus metopimazine with tropisetron plus placebo during 4 cycles of multiple-day, cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

82 chemotherapy-naive patients with germ cell cancer scheduled to 4 cycles of multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (20 or 40 mg/m(2)/day for 5 days) given every 3 weeks were included. A double-blind parallel trial design was used and patients randomized to tropisetron plus metopimazine or tropisetron plus placebo. Tropisetron was administered as a single 5 mg intravenous dose on days 1-5 and a single 5 mg oral dose on day 6, and metopimazine as 30 mg orally t.i.d. on day 1, and q.i.d on days 2-6.

RESULTS

Patients were evaluable for efficacy during a total of 195 cycles. Small, but certain advantages were obtained with the combination. In cycle 1, complete protection from emetic episodes on day 1, days 1-5, days 6-9 and days 1-9 was achieved in 85.7%, 42.9%, 86.2% and 40.5% with tropisetron plus metopimazine and in 90.0%, 22.5%, 64.3% and 17.5% with tropisetron plus placebo, respectively. This difference achieved statistical significance in the overall period, days 1-9 (P = 0.029). During the entire period (days 1-9), significantly less nausea was seen in patients receiving tropisetron plus metopimazine (P = 0.027), whereas other nausea parameters did not reach statistical significance. The cumulative emetic protection rate after 4 cycles was 0.51 with tropisetron plus metopimazine and 0.25 with tropisetron plus placebo (P = 0.037). Side effects were generally few and mild with both treatments and no significant differences were seen.

CONCLUSION

Tropisetron plus metopimazine is superior to tropisetron during 4 cycles of multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy, but both treatments are ineffective in a number of patients. The effect of the combination seems comparable to that of ondansetron plus dexamethasone. Newer drugs such as the neurokinin(1) receptor antagonist, aprepitant, should be investigated to optimize antiemetic therapy in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy.

Side effects associated with the use of dexamethasone for prophylaxis of delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

The role of dexamethasone to reduce delayed emesis following highly emetogenic chemotherapy is proven, but there is less evidence of benefit after mild–moderately emetogenic regimens. Here, we develop and evaluate a Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) to assess the side effects of dexamethasone in the week after patients receive moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The DSQ was first optimised with the aid of a focus group. Sixty patients receiving oral dexamethasone for prophylaxis of delayed emesis after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for cancer completed and then evaluated the DSQ. Patients reported that the DSQ was clearly worded and addressed items important to them. Patients receiving dexamethasone reported moderate–severe problems with insomnia (45%), indigestion/epigastric discomfort (27%), agitation (27%), increased appetite (19%), weight gain (16%) and acne (15%) in the week following chemotherapy. The side effects of dexamethasone may outweigh its benefits when used with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. A randomised, double-blind crossover trial is underway to determine the effect of dexamethasone on nausea and vomiting, and the impact of side effects of dexamethasone and of nausea and vomiting on quality of life.

Prevención y control de las náuseas y los vómitos inducidos por quimioterapia

Nausea and vomiting are considered one of the most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy. Complete control of acute and delayed emesis improves quality of life and increases adherence to treatment. The frequency of nausea and vomiting depends primarily on the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic agents used. With the standard antiemetic therapy (5HT-3 receptor antagonists in combination with dexamethasone) approximately 13% of patients receiving chemotherapy have vomiting in the acute phase and almost 50% in the delayed phase. A new group of antiemetic drugs, the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, in combination with standard therapy significantly improves emesis protection in the acute and in the delayed phase, although control of nausea is not so effective. Nowadays chemotherapy-induced emesis still occurs. Recent developments in antiemetic therapy and responsibility to achieve the best control of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy justified a review of this problem, which is frequently underestimated by physicians and nurses.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: current and new standards in the antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment

Nausea and vomiting are considered as two of the most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting have been classified into acute, delayed and anticipatory based on the time of onset. The frequency of nausea and vomiting depends primarily on the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic agents used. With the introduction of the 5-HT3 receptor-antagonists in combination with dexamethasone in the early 1990s approximately 70% of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy were protected from acute emesis. However, 40% of patients have symptoms in the delayed phase. Another group of antiemetics, the neurokinin-1-receptor-antagonists, have recently been introduced. The addition of neurokinin receptor (NK1 receptor)-antagonists to standard therapy significantly improves emesis protection in the acute and in particular in the delayed phase by approximately 20%. Due to these new developments, revised antiemetic guidelines have been set. Here, the most recent developments in antiemetic therapy, including these guidelines, are reviewed.

Glucocorticoid administration in antiemetic therapy: is it safe?

BACKGROUND

Although glucocorticoids are often used in cancer therapy, in particular to enhance the effectiveness of antiemetic therapy, they have been associated with impaired tumor apoptosis and an increased frequency of metastases in some reports. The current study aimed to determine whether glucocorticoid treatment had an adverse effect on outcomes in patients with ovarian carcinoma.

METHODS

Records of patients with ovarian carcinoma who were scheduled to receive at least six courses of systemic chemotherapy were reviewed. Patients were grouped into those who had or had not received corticosteroid medication as a part of general antiemetic prophylaxis before chemotherapy, and details of hematologic parameters during treatment and disease recurrence-free and overall survival were recorded.

RESULTS

Altogether, 245 patients with ovarian carcinoma had received chemotherapy. Of these, 62 had been given concurrent glucocorticoid treatment and 183 had not. The two patient groups were well balanced with respect to disease stage and other prognostic factors. Kaplan-Meier analyses showed no significant differences in survival between the groups. Patients who received glucocorticoid treatment had significantly higher leukocyte values in the days immediately after chemotherapy, higher nadir leukocyte values, and higher counts before subsequent courses of chemotherapy (P < 0.01; Levene test, t test) compared with patients who did not receive glucocorticoid treatment. As a result, the initial treatment targets were achieved significantly more often in the glucocorticoid group (P = 0.007; chi-square test).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence that glucocorticoid treatment had a negative effect on outcomes in these patients. Glucocorticoids may exert protective effects on the bone marrow.

Options for the prevention and management of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children

The current standard of care with respect to preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children includes the administration of a 5-HT(3) antagonist with or without a corticosteroid, depending on the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy to be given. Problems in assessing the emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens and nausea severity in children may influence the degree of success of CINV prophylaxis. Nevertheless, the majority of children who receive chemotherapy today experience moderate to complete control of acute CINV when given appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis. If children vomit or experience nausea despite appropriate prophylaxis, then measures must be taken to treat these symptoms since these children are likely to go on to experience delayed or anticipatory CINV. However, appropriate selection of interventions to treat acute CINV in children is limited by the lack of rigorous evidence to support one approach over another. Lorazepam is suggested as an immediate agent for the treatment of acute CINV. Doses and frequencies of the 5-HT(3) antagonist and corticosteroid administered for initial prophylaxis should also be maximized. Further treatment must be tailored to the circumstances and preferences of each child and family. Options include crossover to another 5-HT(3) antagonist, or administration of an adjunctive antiemetic such as metopimazine, low dose metoclopramide, domperidone, alizapride, nabilone, scopolamine, prochlorperazine, or chlorpromazine. Complementary interventions such as acupuncture, hypnosis, counseling, or ginger may also be of benefit. Further study is required to establish optimal antiemetic strategies in children.

A new class of antiemetic agents on the horizon

This article reviews a new class of antiemetic agents, the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists (RAs). Clinical trials of an NK-1 RA, aprepitant, are ongoing.

Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting, Part 2

Credit

This lesson is good for 0.3 CE units, with a passing grade of 70%.

Goal

The goal of this program is to inform the participant about cost-effective ways to prevent, identify, and manage nausea and vomiting induced by antineoplastic agents.

Objectives

At the completion of this program the participant will be able to: 1. List antineoplastic agents associated with a high incidence of nausea and vomiting. 2. Identify patient-specific risk factors for developing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and how these factors may influence treatment of this syndrome. 3. Compare the three major types of CINV, including the pathophysiologic mechanism, time of onset, and symptom duration of each type. 4. Explain the mechanism of action and appropriate place in therapy for each type of antiemetic agent. 5. Differentiate between pharmacologic regimens for the prevention and treatment of CINV in adults. 6. Identify drug-specific factors that must be considered when developing a formulary management strategy for the antiemetic agents. 7. Describe specific information that the pharmacist can share with patients to help them understand and manage CINV.

High efficacy of a single oral dose of ondansetron 8 mg versus a metoclopramide regimen in the prevention of acute emesis induced by fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC) chemotherapy for breast cancer

The aim of our single-center, prospective, randomized, open study was to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of a regimen based on a single oral dose of ondansetron 8 mg in comparison with a metoclopramide-based regimen, for prevention of acute FAC (fluorouracil, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy-induced emesis. A total of 149 chemotherapy-naive, female outpatients, under 50 years of age and with no history of alcohol consumption, scheduled to receive their first cycle of FAC chemotherapy, were included. The patients received either oral ondansetron (8 mg) or metoclopramide (1.5 mg/kg, i.v.), both combined with dexamethasone (16 mg, i.v.) and alprazolam (0.5 mg t.i.d. orally). No antiemetic prophylaxis was given for delayed emesis. Complete control of acute vomiting was obtained in 69/74 (93%) of patients receiving ondansetron, and in 49/75 (65%) of those receiving metoclopramide (p=0.00003). Complete control of acute nausea was obtained in 58% of patients receiving ondansetron and in 36% of those receiving metoclopramide (p=0.007). Complete prevention of delayed vomiting/nausea was achieved in 73%/20% and 60%/16% of patients, respectively. Sedation was more frequent in the metoclopramide arm (p=0.04). As far as we know this is the first study that supports the efficacy of a regimen based on a single oral dose of ondansetron 8 mg in the prevention of acute FAC chemotherapy-induced emesis. The ondansetron regimen was highly effective in female patients and was superior to the metoclopramide based regimen.