Randomised double-blind study comparing tropisetron alone and in combination with dexamethasone in the prevention of acute and delayed cisplatin-induced emesis

Prevalence and predictors of long-delayed (> 120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although there have been reports of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) beyond 120 h, its overall prevalence has not been systematically examined. The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to report on the prevalence of this long-delayed CINV.

METHODS

This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022346963). PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception until August 2022. Articles were included if they reported on CINV > 120 h after initiation of the chemotherapy regimen and patients received a single-agent highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) antineoplastic agent for 1 day alone or in combination with low/minimal emetogenic chemotherapy. For all eligible articles, individual study authors were contacted and requested to provide individual patient-level data of demographics, emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens, and daily incidence of nausea and vomiting. Forward stepwise logistic regression identified predictors for the incident day's CINV based on prior day's CINV episodes, controlling for patient demographics, and stratified by regimen emetogenicity.

RESULTS

A total of 2048 patients from 2 studies were included in this individual patient data meta-analysis: 1333 patients (65%) received HEC and 715 (35%) received MEC. Among those receiving HEC, 325 (24%) experienced acute, 652 (49%) delayed, and 393 (31%) long-delayed nausea; 107 (8%) experienced acute, 179 (14%) delayed, and 79 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Among those receiving MEC, 48 (7%) experienced acute, 272 (38%) delayed, and 167 (24%) long-delayed nausea; 12 (2%) experienced acute, 97 (14%) delayed, and 42 (6%) long-delayed vomiting. Nausea in the long-delayed phase was as severe as in the delayed phase. Patients experiencing nausea and vomiting on days 4 and 5 were at significant risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

CONCLUSION

While not as prevalent as delayed nausea and vomiting, long-delayed CINV affects a significant proportion of patients and severity is similar. Patients with delayed CINV, specifically on days 4-5, are at risk of experiencing long-delayed CINV.

QoL evaluation of olanzapine for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting comparing with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist

This study evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and improving the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer during chemotherapy. Two hundred twenty-nine patients with cancer who received chemotherapy from January 2008 to August 2008 were enrolled, and they were randomised to receive olanzapine or a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. The patients completed a CINV questionnaire once daily on days 1-5 and a QoL questionnaire on days 0 and 6. The complete response (CR) rates for nausea (76.85% versus 46.2%) and vomiting (84.3% versus 67.6%) were significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist group for delayed CINV but not for acute CINV. The CR rates for nausea (76.85% versus 44.44%) and vomiting (85.95% versus 67.59%) were also significantly higher in the olanzapine group for the 5 days post-chemotherapy. After chemotherapy, global health status, emotional functioning, and insomnia were improved in the olanzapine group but worsened in the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist group, whereas cognitive functioning and appetite loss were unchanged. Moreover, olanzapine significantly improved global health status, emotional functioning, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, and appetite loss. Olanzapine improved the QoL of patients with cancer during chemotherapy, in part by reducing the incidence of delayed CINV.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of intravenous palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare treatment effectiveness and adverse effects in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with palonosetron to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) comparing palonosetron with first-generation 5-HT3RA in the prevention of CINV in cancer patients. Meta-analyses were performed on homogeneous studies. Fixed or random-effects models were used to combine data.

RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified, reporting outcomes on 3,592 patients. Meta-analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of palonosetron compared with first-generation 5-HT3RA in prevention of acute CINV (p = .0003), delayed CINV (p < .00001), and overall phase of CINV (p < .00001). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of both 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg of palonosetron in prevention of all phases of CINV. There were no statistically significant differences between 0.25 and 0.75 mg of palonosetron. Compared with the first-generation 5-HT3RA, 0.75 mg of palonosetron showed a statistically significant difference in the occurrence of constipation (p = .04).

INTERPRETATION

The use of palonosetron should be considered an integral part of adjuvant therapy for prevention of the acute, delayed, and overall phases of CINV. The 0.25 mg intravenous palonosetron dose is as effective as the 0.75 mg intravenous palonosetron dose. However, 0.75 mg intravenous palonosetron causes constipation more frequently than the first-generation 5-HT3RA.

Antiemetic activity of corticosteroids in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: dosing, efficacy, and tolerability analysis

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy remain the standards of treatment for many patients with cancer, but these modalities are often limited by distressing side-effects, most notably chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

METHODS

This paper considers the role of corticosteroids in CINV prophylaxis. Clinical trial results and treatment guidelines indicate that even with the emergence of new serotonin and neurokinin receptor antagonists, corticosteroids continue to play an important role in antiemesis for oncology patients. Numerous clinical trial results have demonstrated that both dexamethasone and methylprednisolone are effective as monotherapy and in combination with older and more recently developed antiemetic agents in patients receiving a wide range of chemotherapeutic regimens used for treatment of different cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

With the increasing number of antineoplastic regimens and factors specific to individual patients, it is important to frequently review antiemetic treatment options and continually monitor therapeutic progress to establish the optimal therapy for each patient.

Tropisetron: optimal dosage for children in prevention of chemotherapy-induced vomiting

The antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of Tropisetron (Navoban, Novartis Pharma Switzerland AG, Bern), a selective 5-hydroxytriptamine receptor antagonist, has been assessed in the prevention of acute vomiting in children receiving chemotherapy for solid tumors. Tropisetron iv was given 30 min before administration of chemotherapy at a dose of 5 mg in children <20 kg body weight and at a dose of 10 mg in those >20 kg. A total of 50 children were studied in 189 courses of chemotherapy. Control of emesis was defined as total in absence of acute vomiting, as major if 1 or 2 events of acute vomiting occurred, and as not controlled if >2 events of acute vomiting occurred. Response was studied, taking into account Tropisetron dosage, degree of emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents in pretreated and non-pretreated patients, and according to age groups. Tropisetron, administered in a single daily dose of 8-12 mg/m(2), was found to be very effective in completely controlling acute emesis in 92% of the courses of moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy administered to pediatric patients with solid tumors. Moreover, Tropisetron, at this dosage, did not lead to any adverse effects.

A Randomised Crossover Study Comparing Ramosetron plus Dexamethasone with Ramosetron Alone in the Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Emesis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of a combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone compared with ramosetron alone in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomised, single-blind, crossover study.

PATIENTS

Thirty-four chemotherapy-naive patients with stomach cancer or sar-coma scheduled to receive two consecutive courses of cisplatin-based chemo-therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to receive ramosetron (0.3mg intravenously [IV] on day 1 then 0.1mg orally [PO] once daily on days 2-6) either with or without dexamethasone (20mg IV on days 1-6). Those who completed the first chemotherapy cycle returned for a second cycle after 4 weeks and were crossed over to the alternate antiemetic treatment.

RESULTS

In the first 24 hours, complete response was achieved in 84.8% of patients receiving ramosetron plus dexamethasone and in 59.4% of patients receiving ramosetron alone (p = 0.014). Furthermore, the combination ramosetron plus dexamethasone was significantly more effective in terms of time to first episode of vomiting and patient's preference. On day 2, patients who received ramosetron plus dexamethasone had a higher complete response rate than those who received ramosetron alone (p = 0.047). Adverse events were mild with no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ramosetron plus dexamethasone was superior to ramosetron alone in preventing cisplatin-induced acute emesis. It is highly recommended that a combination of ramosetron plus dexamethasone rather than ramosetrone alone be given to patients receiving cisplatin-containing chemo-therapy.

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.

Randomised comparison of ondansetron plus dexamethasone with dexamethasone alone for the control of delayed cisplatin-induced emesis

The role of 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) (HT(3)) antagonists in the treatment of delayed emesis is still controversial. To evaluate whether 5-HT(3) antagonists can add to the efficacy of corticosteroids in controlling delayed emesis, we performed a randomised, prospective, open study comparing ondansetron plus dexamethasone with dexamethasone alone in cisplatin-treated patients. 149 cisplatin-naïve patients with lung cancer received at least 60 mg/m(2) of cisplatin and were treated with dexamethasone 32 mg intravenously (i.v.) and granisetron 3 mg i.v. on day 1. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either dexamethasone 16 mg i.v. alone (arm A) or dexamethasone plus ondansetron 8 mg daily (arm B) on days 2-4. None of the efficacy variables related to control of delayed emesis differed significantly between the two arms. In conclusion, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to support the prolonged use of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists after 24 h of cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.

Comparative study of tropisetron with the addition of dexamethasone or alprazolam in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy with CEF (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil)

We studied tropisetron (T) in patients with breast cancer receiving standard adjuvant chemotherapy with CEF (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil) over 3 consecutive cycles; T was administered alone or in combination with dexamethasone (D) or alprazolam (A). 50 women entered and during the 1st cycle patients received T i.v. before chemotherapy and the same dose orally on each of the following 3 days. In the 2nd cycle, T was administered together with D and during the 3rd cycle, T was combined with A and continued with T over the ensuing 3 days post-chemotherapy. Stress was present in 23 women and was evaluated for its impact on antiemetic response. Differences in the emetogenic response were found for nausea and vomiting mainly with the addition of A. The combination of T+A was superior to T and T+D in acute emesis (P<0.001). Concerning delayed emesis, differences were detected with both T+D and T+A (being equally effective) and superior to T alone (P<0.001). The emetogenic potential was decreased by the addition of A in comparison to T alone (P=0.001). Patients without stress had no difference, while patients with stress had a significantly better antiemetic result with the addition of D or A to T. In conclusion, T provides a satisfactory result in controlling nausea and emesis caused by moderately emetogenic CT regimens. Addition of D or A improves the antiemetic effect, and A provides better coverage in women with stress, a finding worth exploration in larger confirmatory studies.

Contribution of dexamethasone to control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis of randomized evidence

PURPOSE

To synthesize the available randomized evidence on the efficacy of dexamethasone when used for protection against acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic cancer chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed using trials identified through MEDLINE (1966 to April 1999), Embase, Derwent Drug File, and the Cochrane Library's Database of Controlled Trials. Data on acute and delayed emesis and nausea were collected. All randomized studies comparing dexamethasone to placebo, no treatment, or other antiemetics qualified, including cross-over trials providing first-cycle data.

RESULTS

Of 1,200 citations screened, 32 studies with 42 pertinent comparisons and 5,613 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Dexamethasone was superior to placebo or no treatment for complete protection from acute emesis (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89 to 2.60) and for complete protection from delayed emesis (odds ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.63 to 2.56). The results were similar for complete protection from nausea. The pooled risk difference for complete protection from emesis was 16% for both the acute and delayed phases (95% CI, 13% to 19% and 11% to 20%, respectively). The beneficial effect was similar in subgroups defined by various study design parameters. No trial addressed the efficacy of dexamethasone in the delayed phase without having administered dexamethasone for acute-phase protection as well.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone is clearly effective in protecting from emesis both in the acute and delayed phases, with emesis avoided in one patient out of six treated. Future trials should determine whether the delayed-phase effect is independent of the acute-phase benefit.

Comparative efficacy of three 5-HT3 antagonists (granisetron, ondansetron, and tropisetron) plus dexamethasone for the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis: a randomized crossover study

The purpose of this study was to compare the antiemetic efficacy of three 5-HT3 antagonists (granisetron, ondansetron, tropisetron) plus dexamethasone for the prevention of acute emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy. This was a randomized, open label, crossover study. Recruited into the study were 94 chemotherapy-naive patients of whom five were excluded because chemotherapy was not given, noncisplatin regimen was used instead, or presence of anticipatory vomiting. The remaining 89 evaluable patients were mostly (86.5%) male, and were all treated for head and neck cancers. The antiemetic regimens consisted of 1) granisetron 3 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. on day 1 (GRADEX); 2) tropisetron 5 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. on day 1 (TRODEX); and 3) ondansetron 8 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. to be followed by ondansetron 8 mg p.o. x 2 on day 1 (ONDEX). Patients were randomized to receive one of the three regimens in the first cycle, and treatment was crossed over to the other two regimens in subsequent cycles. Antiemetic efficacy was assessed using self-report diaries recording the number of vomiting episodes as well as duration and severity of nausea within the first 24 hours. Complete response was defined as no vomiting with or without mild nausea, and major response was defined as one vomiting episode and/or moderate to severe nausea. Major efficacy refers to either complete or major response. A total of 219 cycles was given to 89 patients: 16 received one cycle only, 16 received two cycles, and 57 received three cycles. No carryover effects were observed between cycles. Using pooled data from all cycles, the complete response rates to GRADEX, TRODEX, and ONDEX were 81%, 68%, and 71%, respectively (p = 0.11); the corresponding major efficacy rates were 91%, 93%, and 86%, respectively (p = 0.36). When only the first cycle was considered, the complete response rates to GRADEX, TRODEX, and ONDEX were 81%, 75%, and 74%, respectively (p = 0.58); the corresponding major efficacy rates were 92%, 94%, and 84%, respectively (p = 0.38). Analysis of the crossover data showed that the majority of patients achieved complete response or major efficacy with the different pairs of regimens, and there were no significant differences between different regimens in terms of complete response or major efficacy. The only exception was GRADEX versus TRODEX, in which 15.5% of patient achieved complete response with GRADEX as compared with 1.7% with TRODEX (p = 0.025). The majority of patients (53%) did not report any preference, whereas 14% preferred GRADEX, 15% preferred TRODEX, and 18% preferred ONDEX. The three 5-HT3 antagonists, when used in combination with steroids, had similar major efficacy for prophylaxis against cisplatin-induced acute emesis. Although GRADEX was superior to TRODEX in terms of complete response, this may not be of clinical significance. The choice of antiemetic regimens should therefore depend on patient preference and drug cost.