5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis

The Antiemetic Effect of Xiao-Ban-Xia-Tang Formula against Cisplatin-Induced Emesis is Mediated through Inhibition of NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation in a Rat Pica Model

Xiao-Ban-Xia-Tang (XBXT), a traditional Chinese medicine formula, has been used for the treatment of emesis for nearly 2000 years, but its underlying mechanism is not yet fully clarified. The purpose of this study is to reveal the antiemetic mechanisms of XBXT by focusing on the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway in a chemotherapy-induced rat pica model. The pica model was generated by a single intraperitoneal injection of cisplatin in this study. Consumption of kaolin (a type of clay) and food and body weight were recorded every 24 hours. Cisplatin-induced increase in kaolin consumption (pica) was used to quantify chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Tissue from the ileum and antrum was stained with hematoxylin eosin (HE) to observe pathological changes. The levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1β and IL-18 in serum, were detected by ELISA. In addition, changes in the NLRP3 inflammasome activation in the ileum and antrum were investigated using western blot and immunofluorescence microscopy. The results showed that oral administration of XBXT and ondansetron inhibited acute and delayed pica and significantly protected against the gastrointestinal pathological injury induced by cisplatin. The levels of ROS, IL-1β, and IL-18 in the serum of cisplatin-treated rats were also remarkably decreased by XBXT and ondansetron. Moreover, we found that XBXT can inhibit cisplatin-induced NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The present study indicates that the inhibition of the NLRP3 inflammasome activation might be one of the potential mechanisms for the therapeutic effects of XBXT against CINV.

[Management of chemotherapy-induced emesis: what is the standard after 20 years of clinical research]

BACKGROUND

The knowledge of the importance, the physiopathological mechanisms, and the management of the chemotherapy-induced emesis has increased exponentially during the last 20 years. High-dosage metoclopramide (MCP) therapy has been introduced in the eighties and serotonine type-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) have been used since the late eighties and early nineties. Due to both classes of substances the results of the antiemetic therapies have improved drastically. After 20 years of intensive clinical research it seems to be appropriate to come to an intermediate conclusion.

METHOD

With the aid of an overview and a new analysis of the literature published on this topic so far, the current state of research is shown (including the fields in which further improvement will be necessary), and suggestions are made, wherever it seemed possible, to attain the "gold standard" in antiemetic therapy.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In connection with all highly or very highly emetogenic chemotherapies, an antiemetic prophylaxis should be initiated on the day of therapy, especially when using platinum or most of the cyclophosphamide-based regimes for cancer treatment. The recommended prophylaxis consists of a combination of 5-HT(3) antagonists with a corticosteroid. To combat the so-called delayed emesis on the days following therapy, all patients should undergo an oral corticoid therapy, possibly in combination with MCP (especially platinum-therapy patients), less frequently with 5-HT(3) antagonists. With these means of prophylaxis emesis can be prevented/avoided completely in most patients, and nausea can at least be reduced. It is sufficient to administer a single dose of 5-HT(3) antagonists prior to chemotherapy. For ondansetron and granisetron, the best documented substances within this class of drugs, 8 mg (ondansteron) and 3 mg (granisetron) are considered standard dosages. Among the corticoids, most data have been accumulated for dexamethasone. A standard dose of 10 to 20 mg can be administered prior to chemotherapy. Right after and especially on the days following chemotherapy higher dosages seem to be indicated.

PROSPECT

Further therapy improvements, especially concerning emesis and nausea on the days following chemotherapy, are necessary and are currently object of clinical research.

American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology: update 2006

PURPOSE

To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology.

UPDATE METHODOLOGY

The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of data published from 1998 thru February 2006. The literature review focused on published randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) serotonin receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended before chemotherapy of high emetic risk. For persons receiving chemotherapy of high emetic risk, there is no group of patients for whom agents of lower therapeutic index are appropriate first-choice antiemetics. These agents should be reserved for patients intolerant of or refractory to 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone. The three-drug combination of a 5-HT3 receptor serotonin antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. For patients receiving other chemotherapy of moderate emetic risk, the Update Committee continues to recommend the two-drug combination of a 5-HT3 receptor serotonin antagonist and dexamethasone. In all patients receiving cisplatin and all other agents of high emetic risk, the two-drug combination of dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended for the prevention of delayed emesis. The Update Committee no longer recommends the combination of a 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed emesis after chemotherapeutic agents of high emetic risk. CONCLUSION The Update Committee recommends that clinicians administer antiemetics while considering patients' emetic risk categories and other characteristics.

Acute and delayed nausea and emesis control in pediatric oncology patients

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge there is little information available regarding the effectiveness of standard antiemetic therapy among cancer patients who receive emetogenic chemotherapy in clinical practice, especially in the pediatric population. The current study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of standard antiemetic interventions among children receiving emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of antiemetic surveys for children who received emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients and/or their parents were surveyed for acute and delayed nausea and emesis after each course of emetogenic chemotherapy. The survey consisted of validated measures of the severity of nausea and emesis. Complete protection (CP) rates were calculated for each chemotherapy regimen during both the acute and delayed phases and also by gender and age group (ages birth-3 yrs, 4-11 yrs, and 12-20 yrs). Antiemetic therapy consisted of intravenous ondansetron administered once daily during chemotherapy either alone (for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy) or in combination with dexamethasone (for severely emetogenic chemotherapy).

RESULTS

In total, 224 different patients completed 1256 surveys. CP from both acute and delayed nausea and emesis was more likely in the children ages birth-3 years than in older children. For moderately emetogenic regimens, nausea and emesis in the acute and delayed phases were controlled well. Among severely emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, 7 of 12 different regimen types had CP rates < 50% in either the acute phase or the delayed phase. CP rates were particularly low for cisplatin-based and cyclophosphamide-based regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Nausea and emesis remain significant problems among children who receive emetogenic chemotherapy. CP rates were associated significantly with patient age, and higher rates were observed among very young children.

Employment of substandard antiemetic prophylaxis in recent trials of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of substandard antiemetic therapy among recently published trials conducted in patients with cancer who received emetogenic chemotherapy.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was conducted (2000-July 2004) using the key words 5-HT(3) antagonists, ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron, tropisetron, ramosetron, palonosetron, NK-1 antagonists, and aprepitant.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All antiemetic trials in patients receiving chemotherapy that were published from January 2000 to July 2004 were evaluated. Standard prophylactic antiemetic therapy was derived from contemporary antiemetic guidelines published by oncology professional organizations and expert panels. The number of patients and studies in which patients received standard and substandard antiemetic therapy was determined for both the acute and delayed phases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Separate determinations were made for severely and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The annual percentage of studies in which substandard antiemetic prophylaxis was given and the percentage of patients who received substandard prophylaxis also were determined.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Fifty-six studies were reviewed, which included a total of 10 274 patients and 125 study arms. The percentage of patients who received substandard antiemetic prophylaxis was 30% (n = 3063) for acute CINV and 33% (n = 3413) for delayed CINV. The average annual percentage of studies that employed substandard prophylaxis during this time period was 54%.

CONCLUSIONS

In recent antiemetic trials for CINV, the employment of substandard antiemetic therapy is common. These results raise important ethical questions regarding contemporary antiemetic trial design.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Taiwan: physicians' and nurses' estimation vs. patients' reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

The major objective of the study was to determine the incidence and prevalence of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving chemotherapy and assess the accuracy with which medical providers perceive the incidence of CINV in their practice.

METHODS

Specialists, residents and nurses (medical providers) from two cancer centers in Taiwan estimated the incidence of acute and delayed CINV. Chemotherapy-naive patients from the same centers then completed a 5-day nausea and vomiting diary following highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC) to determine the actual incidence of acute and delayed CINV. Daily nausea ratings were recorded on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). No nausea was defined as a nausea VAS score <5 mm. Vomiting episodes were also recorded. Nausea and vomiting were defined as acute and delayed based on whether they occurred during the first 24 h after chemotherapy, or during days 2-5 after chemotherapy, respectively.

RESULTS

In the two oncology centers, 37 medical providers (13 specialists, 4 residents, 20 nurses) and 107 patients were enrolled. The mean patient age was 49.2 years with 76% female and 74% having breast cancer. Of the 107 patients, 39% received HEC and 61% received MEC, and 77% received a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and 94% received dexamethasone. There were no significant differences between patients with acute CINV and delayed CINV in terms of demographics, chemotherapy treatment or antiemetic treatment. The proportion of patients without alcohol use was significantly higher among patients with delayed CINV than among those with non-delayed CINV. Good control of CINV during the acute period correlated with the control of delayed emesis. There were no significant differences between specialists', residents', and nurses' estimations of the incidence rates of CINV. For HEC given to chemotherapy-naïve patients, the medical providers estimated acute CINV to be 44/41% and delayed CINV to be 61/53%, respectively. However, patient diaries revealed acute CINV to be 43/21% and delayed CINV to be 64/60%, respectively. For MEC given to chemotherapy-naive patients, medical providers estimated acute CINV to be 39/36% and delayed CINV to be 44/39%, respectively. However, patient diaries revealed acute CINV to be 55/18% and delayed CINV to be 74/55%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical providers significantly overestimated the incidence of acute vomiting by 20% and 18% in HEC and MEC patients, respectively. While they correctly estimated the rate of delayed vomiting in HEC patients, they underestimated it by 16% in MEC patients. With respect to nausea, medical providers correctly estimated rates of both acute and delayed nausea in HEC patients, but significantly underestimated rates of acute and delayed nausea by 16% and 30%, respectively, in MEC patients.

Using decision modeling to determine pricing of new pharmaceuticals: The case of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist antiemetics for cancer chemotherapy

Objectives:Decision analysis is commonly used to perform economic evaluations of new pharmaceuticals. The outcomes of such studies are often reported as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with the new agent. Decision analysis can also be used in the context of estimating drug cost before market entry. The current study used neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, a new class of antiemetics for cancer patients, as an example to illustrate the process using an incremental cost of $Can20,000 per QALY gained as the target threshold.

Methods:A decision model was developed to simulate the control of acute and delayed emesis after cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The model compared standard therapy with granisetron and dexamethasone to the same protocol with the addition of an NK-1 before chemotherapy and continued twice daily for five days. The rates of complete emesis control were abstracted from a double-blind randomized trial. Costs of standard antiemetics and therapy for breakthrough vomiting were obtained from hospital sources. Utility estimates characterized as quality-adjusted emesis-free days were determined by interviewing twenty-five oncology nurses and pharmacists by using the Time Trade-Off technique. These data were then used to estimate the unit cost of the new antiemetic using a target threshold of $Can20,000 per QALY gained.

Results:A cost of $Can6.60 per NK-1 dose would generate an incremental cost of $Can20,000 per QALY. The sensitivity analysis on the unit cost identified a range from $Can4.80 to $Can10.00 per dose. For the recommended five days of therapy, the total cost should be $Can66.00 ($Can48.00–$Can100.00) for optimal economic efficiency relative to Canada's publicly funded health-care system.

Conclusions:The use of decision modeling for estimating drug cost before product launch is a powerful technique to ensure value for money. Such information can be of value to both drug manufacturers and formulary committees, because it would facilitate negotiations for optimal pricing in a given jurisdiction.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in routine practice: a European perspective

GOALS OF WORK

The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and its effect on patients' ability to carry out daily life activities following moderately to highly emetogenic, first-cycle chemotherapy in routine practice in cancer centers of four different European countries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, cross-sectional, nonrandomized, self-assessment study in 249 patients enrolled from cancer centers in Spain, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. The study population consisted of 78% women, with a mean age of 54. Breast, lung, and ovarian cancers made up 75% of all cancers in the study. Patients received a mean of 2.0 chemotherapy agents and 2.5 antiemetic drugs.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 450 emetic episodes experienced by 243 patients was recorded over 5 days following chemotherapy, with an average of 1.8 episodes per patient (range: 0-28). A higher percentage of patients (38%) suffered from delayed compared to acute emesis (13%). Between 42% and 52% of all patients suffered from nausea (visual analogue scale > or = 5 mm) on any one day, peaking at day 3. Using the Functional Living Index for Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire, 75% of patients with nausea and 50% with vomiting reported a negative impact of these conditions on performance of daily living.

CONCLUSIONS

CINV remains a significant problem in routine practice, particularly in the delayed phase posttreatment. Overall, CINV had a negative impact on patients' daily life.

[Effectiveness of anti-emetics for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a systematic review]

We performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of anti-emetics for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis using meta-analysis. We selected 12 reports of randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE (1966-2003. 4) and The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2003. Nine of these reports were evaluated as high quality and the others as low quality according to the evaluation criteria of Jadad et al., and only the high-quality reports were subjected to meta-analysis. The statistical results obtained from all 12 reports were also compared with those obtained from the 9 reports of high quality. Corticosteroids significantly reduced the occurrence of delayed emesis. Metoclopramide tended to reduce the occurrence of delayed emesis, although not to a significant extent. In contrast, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists did not show a significant prophylactic effect on delayed emesis. Combination treatments using corticosteroids with metoclopramide or 5-HT3 receptor antagonists did not show significant additional benefits over corticosteroids alone. In conclusion, treatment with corticosteroids without additional metoclopramide or 5-HT3 receptor antagonists appears to be preferable for the prevention of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin.

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.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis by the oral neurokinin-1 antagonist, MK-869, in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone or with dexamethasone alone

PURPOSE

The NK1-receptor antagonist MK-869 (L-754,030) has demonstrated antiemetic activity in humans receiving chemotherapy. Objectives of the present trial included the first assessment of oral MK-869 plus dexamethasone compared with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone for prevention of acute and delayed emesis after high-dose cisplatin. Furthermore, the study sought to confirm that addition of MK-869 to a 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone was more effective than just the 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone for prevention of acute and delayed emesis.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial in 351 cisplatin-naïve patients evaluated prevention of acute (0 to 24 hours) and delayed emesis (primary efficacy parameter; days 2 to 5) after cisplatin (> or =70 mg/m(2)). Patients were randomized to four groups (I to IV) (n = number randomized; number evaluable): granisetron (10 microg/kg intravenously) pre-cisplatin followed by placebo on days 2 to 5 (group I) (n = 90; 90); granisetron and MK-869 (400 mg PO [by mouth]) pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group II) (n = 86; 84); MK-869 (400 mg PO) the evening before and pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group III) (n = 89; 88); or MK-869 (400 mg PO) pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group IV) (n = 86; 84). All patients also received dexamethasone (20 mg PO) before cisplatin. Additional medication was available to treat emesis or nausea at any time.

RESULTS

In the acute period, 57%, 80%, 46%, and 43% of patients were without emesis in groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively (P <.01 for group II v group I). In the delayed period, the proportion of patients without emesis in groups I, II, III, and IV was 29%, 63%, 51%, and 57%, respectively (P <.01 for groups II, III, and IV v group I). The distribution of nausea scores in the delayed period was lower when comparing group II with group I (P <.05 for days 1 to 5 and days 2 to 5). One serious adverse event (dizziness) was rated as possibly related to MK-869.

CONCLUSION

Once daily oral administration of MK-869 was effective in reducing delayed emesis and nausea after high-dose cisplatin. However, the combination of the 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone was numerically superior to MK-869 plus dexamethasone in reducing acute emesis. Confirming and extending previous findings, the triple combination of a 5HT(3) antagonist, MK-869, and dexamethasone provided the best control of acute emesis.

Cisplatin-based therapy: a neurological and neuropsychological review

The present paper reviews research in the area of the broad-spectrum chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin (cis-diamminedichloro-platinum II) and examines the implications for clinical neuropsychology arising from the neurological disruption associated with cisplatin-based therapy. The paper begins with a brief review of cisplatin treatment in terms other than survival alone, and examines the side-effects and the potential central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction in terms of neurological symptoms and concomitant implications for neuropsychology. Two main implications for clinical neuropsychology arising from cisplatin therapy are identified. First, cisplatin therapy impacts upon the psychological well-being of the patient, particularly during and in the months following treatment. It is suggested that during this time, a primary role for neuropsychology is to focus upon the monitoring and the active enhancement of the patient's social, psychological and spiritual resources. Second, with regard to neurocognitive changes, the review suggests that (1) neurocognitive assessment may not yield stable results within 8 months following treatment and (2) while perceptual, memory, attentional and executive dysfunction may be predicted following cisplatin treatment, little systematic research has been carried out to investigate such a possibility. Future research might profitably address this issue and also specifically examine the effects of low dosage cisplatin-based therapy and the effects of recently developed neuroprotective agents. Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that women may be more susceptible to neurotoxicity during cisplatin therapy, but no gender-related cognitive effects are reported in the cisplatin literature. Future research could usefully investigate gender differences in association with cisplatin chemotherapy.

Potent inhibition of both the acute and delayed emetic responses to cisplatin in piglets treated with GR205171, a novel highly selective tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonist

The effects of GR205171, a selective tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonist, were investigated on both the acute and delayed phases of cisplatin-induced nausea-like behaviour and vomiting in the conscious piglet. Animals receiving cisplatin (5.5 mg kg(-1), i.v.) were observed for 60 h. Fifteen min prior to cisplatin infusion (T0(-15 min)), eight piglets acting as controls received an intravenous injection of saline solution (1 ml kg(-1)), whereas experimental animals received a single i.v. administration of GR205171 (1 ml kg(-1)) at a dose of 0.01 (n=8), 0.03 (n=8), 0.1 (n = 8), 0.3 (n = 16) or 1.0 (n = 13) mg kg(-1). In eight additional piglets, GR205171 (1 mg kg(-1)) was administered 15 min before the onset of the delayed phase (T16(-15 min)). A further five piglets received GR205171 (1 mg kg(-1)) every 6 h throughout the experiment. The latencies of the first emetic episode (EE) and nausea-like behavioural episode (NE) increased in all experimental groups treated at T0(-15 min), and the total number of both EE and NE during the 60 h was reduced in a dose-dependent manner. In piglets treated at T0(-15 min) with GR205171 1 mg kg(-1), eight out of 13 (62%) did not vomit throughout the experiment. Animals treated with GR205171 (1 mg kg(-1)) at T16(-15 min) exhibited an acute response to cisplatin but did not vomit during the delayed phase. The greatest inhibition of both nausea-like behaviour and vomiting was observed in piglets receiving multiple injections of GR205171. These results demonstrate the long-lasting anti-emetic effects of GR205171, and confirm the key role of substance P within the emetic reflex.