Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Predictive factors of chemotherapy‑induced nausea and vomiting in elderly patients with gynecological cancer undergoing paclitaxel and carboplatin therapy: A retrospective study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common and distressing adverse effect in elderly patients with gynecological cancer undergoing paclitaxel and carboplatin therapy. The present study aimed to identify predictors of CINV in this population. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 209 elderly patients with gynecological cancer treated with paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy at The Affiliated Hospital, Southwest Medical University (Luzhou, China) between May 2019 and July 2023. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool (MAT) was used to assess the presence, frequency, and severity of CINV. Patients were categorized into the CINV group (n=76) and non-CINV group (n=133) based on the MAT results. Age, hypertension, pre-chemotherapy sleep duration and pre-chemotherapy anxiety level were identified as significant predictors of CINV in the univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, age, pre-chemotherapy sleep duration and pre-chemotherapy anxiety level remained significant predictors. In conclusion, age, pre-chemotherapy sleep duration and pre-chemotherapy anxiety level are significant predictors of CINV in elderly patients with gynecological cancer undergoing paclitaxel and carboplatin therapy. These findings could help in tailoring preventative strategies for CINV in this population.

Olanzapine Versus NK1 Receptor Antagonist for Prevention of Carboplatin-Induced (AUC ≥4) Emesis: A Phase III, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial From India

PURPOSE

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with currently recommended NK1 receptor antagonist-based triplet during carboplatin (AUC ≥4) chemotherapy appears inadequate. A comparative study between olanzapine and NK1 receptor antagonist-based combination is lacking.

METHODS

This was a single-center, phase III, prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority study comparing olanzapine (olanzapine, ondansetron, dexamethasone [OOD]-experimental arm) with fosaprepitant (fosaprepitant, ondansetron, dexamethasone [FOD]-standard arm) in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone among chemotherapy-naïve patients (age ≥18 years) receiving carboplatin (AUC ≥4) during the first cycle of single-day chemotherapy. The OOD arm received olanzapine 5 mg per oral once daily (day 1-4), ondansetron 8 mg with dexametahsone 12 mg intravenous (IV) once daily (20 mg with paclitaxel; day 1), and matching placebo for fosaprepitant (day 1). The FOD arm received fosaprepitant 150 mg IV once daily, with the combination (day 1) and matching placebo for olanzapine (days 1-4). The primary outcome was no nausea during the overall period (0-120 hours).

RESULTS

Between April 2021 and August 2022, a total of 195 patients were evaluable. The proportion of patients without nausea (0 as per Edmonton Symptom Assessment System scale) in OOD versus FOD arms was 44.1% versus 34.4% (P = .19) in the overall period (0-120 hours). Complete response rates and total control rates were also similar in both arms. One patient had grade 3 sedation in the olanzapine arm.

CONCLUSION

Olanzapine, in comparison with NK1 antagonist, is not superior for nausea control during carboplatin-induced emesis. It may act as an effective oral alternative for prevention.

Multi-day vs single-day dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, several randomized controlled trials have compared single-day dexamethasone (dexamethasone-sparing) regimens to the current standard multi-day dexamethasone antiemetic regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone-sparing regimens to standard multi-day dexamethasone, used for the prophylaxis of CINV.

METHODS

Ovid Medline and Embase were searched from database inception to March 2024. Studies were included if they reported on randomized controlled trials of adult cancer patients receiving different scheduling of dexamethasone, for the endpoints of complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication. Safety was also assessed. Meta-analysis, leave-one-out meta-analysis, and cumulative meta-analysis were conducted to generate summary effect estimates and assess the influence of single trials on the summary effect estimate.

RESULTS

Ten trials reporting on 2234 patients were included. Dexamethasone-sparing regimens were found to be no different to control arm in the acute (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08), delayed (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05) and overall phases (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06) for complete response. There was likewise no difference for complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication. Safety profile was similar. There was no concern for bias in the published literature. No difference was found between studies reporting on anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

CONCLUSION

In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, dexamethasone-sparing regimens were found to be no different to current multi-day regimens with respect to efficacy and safety for MEC and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based regimens. Clinicians and future guidelines should strongly consider greater adoption and endorsement of dexamethasone-sparing regimens.

Acupressure On Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting among Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are one of the common and distressing side effects of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients often impacting their quality of life and treatment adherence. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether acupressure is effective in treating breast cancer patients' acute nausea and vomiting brought on by chemotherapy as well as delayed nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

We systematically searched for Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Clinical Key, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Scopus. Based on the inclusion criteria two reviewers independently identified the articles using key thesaurus and free text terms. The review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.

RESULTS

According to the pooled findings, acupressure combined with antiemetics greatly lessens the severity of acute nausea [SMD, (95% CI)] [-0.35(-0.62,-0.08), P=0.01, I2=0%], delayed nausea [SMD, (95% CI)] [-0.52(-0.78,-0.26), P<0.001, I2=16%], and delayed vomiting [SMD, (95% CI)] [-0.46(- 0.83,-0.08), P=0.02, I2=43%] brought on by chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

For chemotherapy-treated breast cancer patients, acupressure is a helpful complementary therapy for easing nausea and vomiting.

Ageing-related considerations for medication used in supportive care in cancer

Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies have shown that a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) prior to a patient commencing systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) results in improved quality of life outcomes and is associated with a decreased risk of grade 3-5 toxicity; however, data are lacking in relation to adverse drug events (ADE) associated with supportive care medications. Supportive care medications are prescribed as prophylactic agents in a SACT regimen, for management of treatment related toxicity and for symptoms caused by the disease itself. While necessary, the commencement of SACT and supportive medications may cause, or exacerbate, a significant drug burden in older patients, some of whom may have existing comorbidities. For many medications, older adults are underrepresented in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling studies. In this article we will review ageing-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, as well as how these changes may impact supportive care medications. Additional considerations for prescribing these medications in older adults with cancer, such as polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications, drug-drug interactions, and anticholinergic burden, as well as ageing-related considerations and recommendations for supportive care medications commonly used in older adults with cancer are also reviewed.

Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of dopamine-receptor antagonists for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Dopamine (D)2,3-receptor antagonists (RAs) were the first antiemetics used in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

AREAS COVERED

Eight D2,3-RAs, amisulpride, domperidone, droperidol, haloperidol, metoclopramide, metopimazine, olanzapine and prochlorperazine are reviewed focusing on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antiemetic effect and side effects.

EXPERT OPINION

Since the introduction of D2,3-RAs, antiemetics such as corticosteroids, 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3-RAs and neurokinin (NK)1-RAs have been developed. The classical D2,3-RAs are recommended in the prophylaxis of CINV from low emetic risk chemotherapy, but not as a fixed component of an antiemetic regimen for moderately or highly (HEC) emetic risk chemotherapy. D2,3-RAs are also used in patients with breakthrough nausea and vomiting. It should be emphasized, that most of these drugs are not selective for dopamine receptors.The multi-receptor targeting agent, olanzapine, is recommended in the prophylaxis of HEC-induced CINV as part of a four-drug antiemetic regimen, including a 5-HT3-RA, dexamethasone and a NK1-RA. Olanzapine is the most effective agent to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea.Side effects differ among various D2,3-RAs. Metopimazine and domperidone possess a low risk of extrapyramidal side effects. Domperidone and metoclopramide are prokinetics, whereas metopimazine delays gastric emptying and haloperidol does not influence gastric motility. Many D2,3-RAs increase the risk of prolonged QTc interval; other side effects include sedation and orthostatic hypotension.

Curative intent therapy for DLBCL in the elderly

Older patients with aggressive lymphoma are extremely heterogeneous due to the high frequency of functional limitations and comorbidities and to the different biological profiles and clinical behavior of the disease. The stratification in three geriatric categories (fit-unfit-frail) based on multidimensional geriatric assessment (GA) helps physicians tailor a potentially curative treatment.While an intensive approach with the standard R-CHOP regimen is feasible in fit patients, leading to similar long-term response and survival rates compared to younger ones, in unfit patients a balance between treatment toxicity and curative intent can be obtained through the reduction of dose intensity. Frail patients, treated with best supportive care so far, could benefit from a chemo-free approach with new target drugs. These novel agents, either alone or in combination with chemo-immunotherapy, are changing the therapeutic landscape of older patients with aggressive lymphoma, both in first-line therapy and in the setting of the relapsed/refractory disease.

Comparing the Efficacy of Fosnetupitant, an NK1 Receptor Antagonist in CDDP-Based Regimens, with That of Fosaprepitant and Aprepitant: A Retrospective Observational Study

Existing antiemetic therapy against emetic-risk agents across malignancies 24 h post-dose in the acute period in cisplatin (CDDP)-based regimens yields a satisfactory complete response (CR) rate of ≥90%. However, the control rate after 24 h in the delayed period is unsatisfactory. This study compared the efficacy of fosnetupitant (F-NTP), a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, with that of fosaprepitant (F-APR) and aprepitant (APR) in the treatment of patients with cancer at high emetic risk due to chemotherapy. In this retrospective case-control study involving patients receiving cisplatin-containing regimens and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists, patients were divided into three groups based on prophylactic antiemetic therapy: F-NTP, F-APR, and APR. The CR rate was evaluated for each period up to 168 h and further subdivided into acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and beyond-delayed (120-168 h) periods. Eighty-eight patients were included in the F-NTP group, 66 in the F-APR group, and 268 in the APR group. The CR rates at 0-168 and 120-168 h after cisplatin administration were significantly higher in the F-NTP group than in the F-APR and APR groups. After adjusting for confounding factors, F-NTP use was an independent factor in the multivariate analysis. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy, including F-NTP, was effective and well-tolerated during the delayed period. The efficacy of F-NTP in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was superior to those of F-APR and APR during the study period.

Anti-cancer effectiveness of a novel ceramide analog on chemo-sensitive and chemo-resistant breast cancers

INTRODUCTION

Ceramides are known to show anti-cancer activity. A novel ceramide analog, (S,E)-3-hydroxy-2-(2-hydroxybenzylidene)amino-N-tetradecylpropanamide (analog 315) was developed as part of a larger study focused on finding more effective breast cancer treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether analog 315 shows any or a combination of the following effects in breast cancer cells in vitro: inhibiting proliferation, inducing apoptosis, and altering protein expression. Also, to determine whether it inhibits chemo-resistant breast cancer tumor growth in vivo mouse model.

METHODS

In vitro cell proliferation and apoptosis after treatment with analog 315 were assessed in three breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7, MCF-7TN-R, and MDA-MB-231) and reported. Protein expression was assessed by microarray assay. For the in vivo studies, chemo-resistant breast cancer cells were used for tumor development in two groups of mice (treated and control). Analog 315 (25 mg/kg/day) or control (dimethyl sulfoxide) was administered intraperitoneally for 7 days. Effects of analog 315 on inhibiting the growth of chemo-resistant breast cancer tumors after treatment are reported.

RESULTS

Analog 315 reduced MCF-7TN-R chemo-resistant tumor burden (volume and weight) in mice. Liver metastasis was observed in control mice, but not in the treated animals. Ki-67, a proliferation marker for breast cancer cells, increased significantly ( P  < 0.05) in control tumor tissue. In vitro studies showed that analog 315 inhibited cell proliferation, altered protein expression and induced apoptosis in all three breast cancer cell lines studied, of which the effects on MCF-7TN-R cells were the most significant.

CONCLUSION

Analog 315 reduced tumor growth in chemo-resistant breast cancer, inhibited cell proliferation, altered protein expression, and induced apoptosis in all three cell lines studied.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents

PURPOSE

This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.

CONCLUSION

There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

PEGylated Tween 80-functionalized chitosan-lipidic nano-vesicular hybrids for heightening nose-to-brain delivery and bioavailability of metoclopramide

A PEGylated Tween 80-functionalized chitosan-lipidic (PEG-T-Chito-Lip) nano-vesicular hybrid was developed for intranasal administration as an alternative delivery route to help improve the poor oral bioavailability of BCS class-III model/antiemetic (metoclopramide hydrochloride; MTC). The influence of varying levels of chitosan, cholesterol, PEG 600, and Tween 80 on the stability/release parameters of the formulated nanovesicles was optimized using Draper-Lin Design. Two optimized formulations (Opti-Max and Opti-Min) with both maximized and minimized MTC-release goals, were predicted, characterized, and proved their vesicular outline via light/electron microscopy, along with the mutual prompt/extended in-vitro release patterns. The dual-optimized MTC-loaded PEG-T-Chito-Lip nanovesicles were loaded in intranasal in-situ gel (ISG) and further underwent in-vivo pharmacokinetics/nose-to-brain delivery valuation on Sprague-Dawley rats. The absorption profiles in plasma (plasma-AUC_0-∞) of the intranasal dual-optimized MTC-loaded nano-vesicular ISG formulation in pretreated rats were 2.95-fold and 1.64-fold more than rats pretreated with orally administered MTC and intranasally administered raw MTC-loaded ISG formulation, respectively. Interestingly, the brain-AUC_0-∞ of the intranasal dual-optimized MTC-loaded ISG was 10 and 3 times more than brain-AUC_0-∞ of the MTC-oral tablet and the intranasal raw MTC-loaded ISG, respectively. It was also revealed that the intranasal dual-optimized ISG significantly had the lowest liver-AUC_0-∞ (862.19 ng.g^-1.h^-1) versus the MTC-oral tablet (5732.17 ng.g^-1.h^-1) and the intranasal raw MTC-loaded ISG (1799.69 ng.g^-1.h^-1). The brain/blood ratio profile for the intranasal dual-optimized ISG was significantly enhanced over all other MTC formulations (P < 0.05). Moreover, the 198.55% drug targeting efficiency, 75.26% nose-to-brain direct transport percentage, and 4.06 drug targeting index of the dual-optimized formulation were significantly higher than those of the raw MTC-loaded ISG formulation. The performance of the dual-optimized PEG-T-Chito-Lip nano-vesicular hybrids for intranasal administration evidenced MTC-improved bioavailability, circumvented hepatic metabolism, and enhanced brain targetability, with increased potentiality in heightening the convenience and compliance for patients.

Efficacy and safety of Aprepitant-containing triple therapy for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most cancer patients suffer from the pain of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a regimen consisting of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the prevention and treatment of CINV.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, HEED, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of triple therapy (aprepitant, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone) to prevent and treat CINV. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata17 software, employing either a fixed-effect or random-effect model based on statistical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 7956 patients was conducted. Efficacy: Results showed significantly improved complete responses (CRs) for CINV in the test group versus the control group in the overall, acute, and delayed phases. Furthermore, in the test group, substantial alleviation of nausea symptoms was observed in the delayed and overall phases but not in the acute phase. Safety: There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, anorexia, and headache between the 2 groups. The incidence of fatigue and hiccups in the test group was higher than that in the control group; however, the incidence of constipation was significantly lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant-containing triple therapy is highly effective in the prevention and treatment of CINV, with reliable medication safety.

Portuguese consensus on the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting induced by cancer treatments

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) strongly affect the quality of life of patients with cancer. Inadequate antiemetic control leads to the decline of patients' quality of life, increases rescue interventions, and may even compromise adherence to cancer treatment. Although there are international recommendations for controlling CINV and RINV, these recommendations focus mainly on pharmacological management, with scarce information on additional measures that patients may adopt. Moreover, the prophylaxis and management of CINV/RINV are not always applied. Thus, we identified the need to systematize the strategies for preventing and managing CINV/RINV and the associated risk factors to implement and promote effective prophylactic antiemetic regimens therapy in patients with cancer. This review sought to create a set of practical recommendations for managing and controlling CINV/RINV, according to the current international recommendations for antiemetic therapy and the main risk factors. Conclusively, we intended to produce a patient-centered guidance document for health care professionals focused on the awareness, monitoring, and treatment of CINV/RINV.

Delivering Palliative and Supportive Care for Older Adults with Cancer: Interactions between Palliative Medicine and Geriatrics

The world's population is aging rapidly, with projections indicating that by 2050 one in six people will be aged ≥65 years. As a result, the number of cancer cases in older people is expected to increase significantly. Palliative care is an essential component of cancer care with a direct impact on quality of life. However, older adults with cancer often suffer from multiple comorbidities, cognitive impairment, and frailty, posing unique challenges in the delivery of palliative care. The complex healthcare needs of older patients with cancer therefore require a comprehensive assessment, including a geriatric evaluation. Collaboration between geriatrics and palliative care can offer a solution to the challenges faced by older people with cancer, since this is a population with overlapping concerns for both disciplines. This review highlights the importance of palliative care for older adults with cancer and the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach. It also addresses the coordination of palliative care and geriatrics for specific symptom management and decision making.

Frequently Asked Questions on Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Recipients From the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and the American Society of Hematology

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), disproportionately affects immunocompromised and elderly patients. Not only are hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell recipients at greater risk for severe COVID-19 and COVID-19-related complications, but they also may experience suboptimal immune responses to currently available COVID-19 vaccines. Optimizing the use, timing, and number of doses of the COVID-19 vaccines in these patients may provide better protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and better outcomes after infection. To this end, current guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination in HCT and CAR T-cell recipients from the American Society of Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Transplant Infectious Disease Special Interest Group and the American Society of Hematology are provided in a frequently asked questions format.