Prospective evaluation of antiemetic outcome following high-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem cell support

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a severe and distressing complication during allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT). The antiemetic fosaprepitant has shown favorable results in pediatric and adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Data on fosaprepitant in children and adolescents undergoing alloHSCT are missing.

Methods

In this non-interventional observation study, 120 children and adolescents with a median age of 11.8 years undergoing alloHSCT after a moderately or highly emetogenic conditioning (MEC or HEC) were analyzed. They received an antiemetic prophylaxis with granisetron (2 × 40 µg/kg d⁻¹) with or without fosaprepitant (4 mg/kg; single dose, max. 1 × 150 mg/kg BW), and were analyzed in the control (CG; n = 60) or fosaprepitant group (FG; n = 60). The efficacy and safety of the two antiemetic prophylaxis regimens were analyzed and compared with respect to the acute (0–24 h) and the delayed (> 24–120 h) CINV phase and > 120–240 h after MEC or HEC administration.

Results

During MEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (58.6 vs. 25.0%; p = 0.0156) and during > 24–120 h (93.1% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.0020), compared with the FG. Likewise, significantly more vomiting events (269 vs. 136; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. During HEC, significantly more patients in the CG experienced vomiting during the first 0–24 h (32.3 vs. 9.4%; p = 0.0319) compared with the FG. Significantly more vomiting events (241 vs. 99; p < 0.0001) were registered in the CG. Laboratory and clinical adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Antiemetic prophylaxis with fosaprepitant and granisetron was well tolerated, safe, and effective in pediatric patients undergoing alloHSCT. However, larger prospective trials are necessary to evaluate these findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03143-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A unique schedule of palonosetron, ondansetron, and dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy

Myeloablative chemotherapy administered prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) is associated with a significant amount of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We conducted a phase II trial to assess the safety, efficacy, and impact on quality of life when palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg combined with dexamethasone were given on the final or only day of myeloablative chemotherapy for auto-SCT. The primary end point of this study was the incidence of achieving a delayed CINV complete response defined as no emetic episode and no use of rescue medications during the 24-120 h period post chemotherapy. Eighty-five patients were enrolled in the study and received PAL. A delayed CINV complete response was achieved in 15% of patients. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no associated differences between age, gender, diagnosis, or regimen. By day 5 after PAL, the mean nausea severity was 0.91 ± 2.45 vs. 0.09 ± 1.58 at baseline (p = 0.012). Quality of life measurements demonstrated similar quality of life between baseline and day 3. By day 6 however, nausea alone had a statistically significant impact on quality of life. In our study, PAL controlled nausea severity and sustained quality of life, but further strategies are needed to control delayed CINV associated with the auto-SCT process.

Fosaprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving BEAM or high-dose melphalan before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of single-dose fosaprepitant on nausea and emesis after BEAM and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimens for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

In a single-center cohort study patients receiving melphalan containing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation regimens who received a one-time dose of 150 mg IV fosaprepitant (n = 56) were compared to a historical control (n = 70).

RESULTS

The primary endpoint of no emesis from melphalan administration through five days afterward was 80% for the fosaprepitant group versus 66% in the control group (p = 0.068). Addition of fosaprepitant demonstrated significant improvement in emetic episodes per patient during the entire assessment period (p = 0.011) and days 1-5 after melphalan (p = 0.045). Fosaprepitant resulted in no substantial nausea during the entire assessment period in 37% of high-dose melphalan patients and 57% of BEAM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies are suggested to investigate the optimal number and timing of doses of fosaprepitant in this setting.

Efficacy and safety of aprepitant in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Study Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aprepitant added to standard antiemetic regimens used in high-dose chemotherapy for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Design

Retrospective medical record review.

Setting

Hematology ward of a university hospital in Japan.

Patients

Of 88 patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy followed by allo-HSCT, 46 received aprepitant and granisetron as antiemetic therapy (between April 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011), and 42 received granisetron alone (between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2010).

Interventions

Patients in both groups received 3 mg of granisetron intravenously 30 minutes before the administration of anticancer drugs. In the aprepitant group, 125 mg of aprepitant was administered orally 60–90 minutes before the administration of the first moderately to highly emetogenic anticancer drug. On the following days, 80 mg of aprepitant was administered orally every morning. The mean administration duration of aprepitant was 3.3 days (range 3–6 days).

Measurements and Main Results

The primary objective was to evaluate the percentage of patients who achieved complete response (CR; no vomiting and none to mild nausea). The CR rate in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (48% vs 24%, p=0.02). Multivariate analysis showed that nonprophylactic use of aprepitant was associated with failure to achieve CR (odds ratio [OR] 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13–7.99, p=0.03). The frequency of abdominal pain was lower in the aprepitant group (9% vs 25%, p=0.03). Rates of other frequently observed adverse drug events were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in neutrophil engraftment (median 18 vs 17 days), platelet engraftment (median 32 vs 32 days), the incidence of acute graft-versus-host-disease (63% vs 55%, p=0.52), viral infection (74% vs 67%, p=0.49), or 1-year overall survival (63% vs 62%, p=0.90) between the two groups.

Conclusions

The addition of aprepitant to granisetron increases the antiemetic effect without influencing transplantation-related toxicities in allo-HSCT.

Three palonosetron regimens to prevent CINV in myeloma patients receiving multiple-day high-dose melphalan and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Explore safety and efficacy of three palonosetron-containing regimens for emesis prevention over 7 days in multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving melphalan (100 mg/m(2)) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Randomized, double-blind pilot study in MM patients (n=73) receiving 1, 2, or 3 days of 0.25 mg palonosetron (30-s i.v. bolus) 30 min before melphalan (days -2 and -1) and HSCT (day 0). Patients received dexamethasone (20 mg i.v., days -2 and -1) immediately before or after study drug/placebo. Daily diaries recorded emesis, rescue medication, nausea duration, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Seven-day complete protection (no emesis) occurred in 41.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 22.1% to 63.4%], 41.7% (95% CI 22.1% to 63.4%), and 44.0% (95% CI 24.2% to 65.1%) of patients receiving 1, 2, or 3 days of palonosetron, respectively (P=0.43). Complete response (emesis free without rescue medication) occurred in 8.3%, 20.8%, and 20.0% (P=0.14). Common AEs (≥10%) were mild-to-moderate diarrhea, constipation, headache, insomnia, and flatulence. No serious AEs occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron with dexamethasone was safe and effective in preventing emesis in MM patients receiving melphalan and HSCT. This pilot study with a limited number of patients suggests that multiple doses of palonosetron could be more effective than a single dose in making patients emesis free without need for rescue medication. However, even multiple doses of palonosetron resulted in only 20% of patients being emesis free without rescue medication, suggesting that further improvement will require development of more effective combination antiemetic therapy.

Antiemetic therapy for multiple-day chemotherapy and additional topics consisting of rescue antiemetics and high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant: review and consensus statement

This paper will evaluate various topics related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The results published reflect a consensus conference convened in Perugia, Italy. The topics discussed include antiemetic therapy of multiple-day chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, and rescue antiemetics.

Palonosetron (Aloxi) and dexamethasone for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy and the efficacy of a second dose of palonosetron in treating breakthrough emesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-six patients treated with multiple-day chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies received palonosetron as prophylaxis for CINV on the first day of chemotherapy and dexamethasone throughout the entire period of chemotherapy. If breakthrough emesis occurred, a second dose of palonosetron was administered after 72 h following the first administration. The results were retrospectively compared to group of patients with similar clinical characteristics undergoing similar multiple-day chemotherapy. This group had received single-dose ondansetron as CINV prophylaxis on the first day of chemotherapy plus dexamethasone throughout the entire period of chemotherapy and metoclopramide for breakthrough emesis.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty and 173 chemotherapy cycles were administered in the palonosetron and ondansetron groups, respectively. Nausea and vomiting were absent in 80% of patients of the palonosetron group and 60% of the control group (p < 0.05). In the palonosetron group, 67% of patients who experienced CINV were successfully rescued by a second dose of palonosetron, while in the ondansetron group, only 22% showed a no CINV after metoclopramide treatment (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The present results appear to be encouraging in terms of complete prophylaxis of CINV and treatment of breakthrough emesis in the setting of multiple-day chemotherapy.

Granisetron vs ondansetron for prevention of nausea and vomiting in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients: results of a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial

The serotonin type-3 (5-HT3) antagonists represent a significant advance in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting (N/V) from highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We sought to determine if any differences in efficacy or adverse effects exist between two such agents, ondansetron and granisetron, during conditioning therapy for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously every 8 h or granisetron 10 microg/kg intravenously daily. Additionally, all patients received scheduled dexamethasone and lorazepam. Prophylaxis was continued until 24 h after completion of chemotherapy. Nausea and distress were measured subjectively with visual analog scales and emetic episodes were quantified. Of the 110 randomized patients, 96 were evaluable for efficacy and safety. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the ondansetron- and granisetron-treated patients, evaluated by comparing the degree of nausea and distress, number of emetic episodes and overall control of emesis. The adverse effects were also comparable and no patients were removed from study because of severe toxicities. This trial demonstrates that ondansetron and granisetron are equally effective at preventing acute N/V associated with conditioning therapy frequently used for HSCT. The agent of choice should be based on drug acquisition cost or preference.

Antiemetic therapy for multiple-day chemotherapy and high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant: review and consensus statement

The objective of this paper is to evaluate the efficacy of modern antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for patients receiving multiple-day or high-dose chemotherapy. Published phase II and phase III studies as well as their personal experiences were evaluated by the authors to develop this consensus statement. The largest published experience with multiple-day chemotherapy is with 5-day cisplatin combination chemotherapy. The introduction of 5-HT3 antagonists greatly improved emetic control. However, day 4-5 nausea as well as delayed nausea and vomiting remains a clinical problem despite the inclusion of dexamethasone. A 5-HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone is the preferred current option for patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplant. However, the results do not appear as successful as for highly emetic standard-dose chemotherapy.

Reduction of motion sickness in prehospital trauma care

Motion sickness adds to the discomfort of many patients being transported by ambulance. Recent research has demonstrated the effectiveness of oxygen therapy in reducing motion sickness during transport to hospital. However, patients reported negative reactions to wearing a facemask, which produced feelings of claustrophobia and anxiety. We therefore tested the hypothesis that supplemental oxygen inhaled from a new oxygen delivery device OxyArm, which avoids direct contact with the patient's skin, may reduce the incidence of motion sickness and increase patient satisfaction. Forty patients suffering from minor trauma were included in a prospective, randomised trial. Twenty patients received oxygen administered using a conventional Venturi mask (group 1), and 20 patients received oxygen using the new OxyArm device (group 2). Measurements made included oxygen saturation (SaO2), heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and patients' subjective score of satisfaction with smell of the device, claustrophobia, inconvenience produced by the oxygen inhalation device and nausea were scored using a visual analogue scale. All patients were haemodynamically stable and comparable between the two groups. Peripheral SaO2 increased in both groups. The scores of nausea and claustrophobia were significantly lower in the OxyArm group, in addition, satisfaction with the OxyArm device was significantly higher. In conclusion, the use of OxyArm device produced a lower incidence of motion sickness combined with the additional benefit of greater patient satisfaction, when compared with a conventional facemask, during prehospital transfer of trauma patients.