A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study to compare the efficacy and safety of ondansetron (GR38032F) plus dexamethasone with metoclopramide plus dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of nausea and emesis induced by carboplatin chemotherapy

A Randomized Open-Label Parallel-Group Study Comparing Ondansetron with Ondansetron plus Dexamethasone in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Receiving High-Dose Epirubicin. A Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group Study

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of this multicenter randomized, open-label, parallel-group study was to assess whether the addition of low-dose dexamethasone to ondansetron results in improved control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in patients undergoing first-line chemotherapy with high-dose epirubicin.

METHODS & STUDY DESIGN

Patients were randomized to receive either 24 mg of ondansetron or 24 mg of ondansetron plus 8 mg of dexamethasone administered as an intravenous infusion 30 minutes prior to administration of chemotherapy. Both groups of patients received 8 mg of ondansetron given orally from day 2 to 5 two times daily. Fifty-three patients received ondansetron and 50 received ondansetron plus dexamethasone. The patients recorded nausea and the number of vomits and retches daily on diary cards.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients in the ondansetron plus dexamethasone group experienced neither vomiting nor retching during the first day of the first course of chemotherapy compared to those receiving ondansetron alone (79.6% vs 53.8%, P = 0.0062). Furthermore, there was a trend in favor of ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the control of nausea. There was no statistically significant difference between ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron alone in protecting patients from emesis between days 2 and 5 of the first course of chemotherapy (66.7% vs 62.7%, P = 0.68). This was probably due to the small sample size. Ondansetron was well tolerated, with 15 patients (15%) reporting adverse events such as headache or constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that ondansetron given intravenously in combination with dexamethasone is more effective than ondansetron alone in the control of acute emesis in patients undergoing their first course of chemotherapy with high-dose epirubicin. No difference between the regimens was found with regard to nausea and delayed emesis control.

The impact of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, 2003-13: a multimethod evaluation

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme supports research tailored to the needs of NHS decision-makers, patients and clinicians. This study reviewed the impact of the programme, from 2003 to 2013, on health, clinical practice, health policy, the economy and academia. It also considered how HTA could maintain and increase its impact.

METHODS

Interviews (n = 20): senior stakeholders from academia, policy-making organisations and the HTA programme. Bibliometric analysis: citation analysis of publications arising from HTA programme-funded research. Researchfish survey: electronic survey of all HTA grant holders. Payback case studies (n = 12): in-depth case studies of HTA programme-funded research.

RESULTS

We make the following observations about the impact, and routes to impact, of the HTA programme: it has had an impact on patients, primarily through changes in guidelines, but also directly (e.g. changing clinical practice); it has had an impact on UK health policy, through providing high-quality scientific evidence - its close relationships with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC) contributed to the observed impact on health policy, although in some instances other organisations may better facilitate impact; HTA research is used outside the UK by other HTA organisations and systematic reviewers - the programme has an impact on HTA practice internationally as a leader in HTA research methods and the funding of HTA research; the work of the programme is of high academic quality - the Health Technology Assessment journal ensures that the vast majority of HTA programme-funded research is published in full, while the HTA programme still encourages publication in other peer-reviewed journals; academics agree that the programme has played an important role in building and retaining HTA research capacity in the UK; the HTA programme has played a role in increasing the focus on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in medicine - it has also contributed to increasingly positive attitudes towards HTA research both within the research community and the NHS; and the HTA focuses resources on research that is of value to patients and the UK NHS, which would not otherwise be funded (e.g. where there is no commercial incentive to undertake research). The programme should consider the following to maintain and increase its impact: providing targeted support for dissemination, focusing resources when important results are unlikely to be implemented by other stakeholders, particularly when findings challenge vested interests; maintaining close relationships with NICE and the NSC, but also considering other potential users of HTA research; maintaining flexibility and good relationships with researchers, giving particular consideration to the Technology Assessment Report (TAR) programme and the potential for learning between TAR centres; maintaining the academic quality of the work and the focus on NHS need; considering funding research on the short-term costs of the implementation of new health technologies; improving the monitoring and evaluation of whether or not patient and public involvement influences research; improve the transparency of the priority-setting process; and continuing to monitor the impact and value of the programme to inform its future scientific and administrative development.

[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.

The neurokinin1 receptor antagonist aprepitant as an antiemetic for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

The neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist aprepitant has become part of standard antiemetic therapy for high-dose cisplatin. Recent results indicate that chemotherapy for breast cancer that contains an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide is more emetogenic than has been previously realised. One large randomised trial demonstrated that aprepitant substantially reduces the risk of vomiting or retching when added to a corticosteroid and a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (HT3) receptor antagonist. The adverse effects of standard antiemetics and chemotherapy do not appear to be increased by the addition of this novel antiemetic agent. Aprepitant should now also be considered to be part of prophylactic antiemetic therapy for women who receive chemotherapy that contains an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. The role of NK1 receptor antagonists in preventing emesis due to other cytotoxic agents that are deemed to be moderately emetogenic is still unclear.

Chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting - past reflections, present practice and future management

Although much progress has occurred in the last decade regarding the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, these remain among the most intolerable side-effects of treatment and patients continue to report the negative impact such symptoms have on their ability to enjoy life. Inadequate control of nausea and vomiting reduces patients' quality of life and functional status and jeopardizes the delivery of optimal treatment, so making its management a priority for oncology health care workers. This article will reflect on past and present evidence regarding the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting while highlighting some of the most recent scientific advances before drawing conclusions about the future management of this troublesome symptom for patients receiving chemotherapy.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Dose-Finding Study of Dexamethasone in Preventing Acute Emesis Induced by Anthracyclines, Carboplatin, or Cyclophosphamide:

Purpose

Different doses and schedules of dexamethasone, combined with a 5-HT3 antagonist, are used to prevent acute emesis induced by anthracyclines, carboplatin, or cyclophosphamide. Therefore, we planned a randomized, double-blind, dose finding study aimed to identify the preferred dose and schedule of dexamethasone.

Patients and Methods

All consecutive chemotherapy-naive patients enrolled onto study were randomly assigned to receive for the prevention of acute emesis, during the first 24 hours, one of the following dexamethasone regimens, in combination with ondansetron 8 mg intravenously (IV): for arm A, 8 mg IV before chemotherapy plus 4 mg orally every 6 hours for four doses, starting at the same time of the chemotherapy; for arm B, 24 mg IV single dose before chemotherapy; and for arm C, 8 mg IV single dose before chemotherapy. All patients received from day 2 to 5 oral dexamethasone 4 mg bid.

Results

A total of 587 patients were enrolled, and 585 were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle (195 patients in each arm). The rate of complete protection from acute vomiting and nausea, respectively, was not significantly different among the three groups (arm A, 84.6% and 66.7%; arm B, 83.6% and 56.9%; arm C, 89.2% and 61.0%), nor was the rate of complete protection from delayed vomiting and nausea, respectively (arm A, 81.0% and 46.7%; arm B, 81.3% and 45.1%; arm C, 79.8% and 46.1%). The incidence of delayed vomiting and nausea was strictly dependent on the presence of acute vomiting and nausea. Adverse events were mild and not significantly different among the three groups.

Conclusion

Dexamethasone 8 mg single dose IV before chemotherapy, in combination with a 5-HT3 antagonist, should be considered the preferred dose to prevent acute emesis induced by anthracyclines, carboplatin, or cyclophosphamide.

An analysis of the antiemetic protection of metoclopramide plus dexamethasone in Chinese patients receiving moderately high emetogenic chemotherapy

This descriptive study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic protection of metoclopramide plus dexamethasone in a sample of 33 Chinese breast cancer patients who were receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. The antiemetic protection effect was not satisfactory. The results showed that the worst nausea and vomiting was experienced on the third day, with 87.9% of patients reporting nausea and 63.6% experiencing vomiting on that day. In almost one-third of the sample antiemetic medication failed to protect against either acute vomiting or delayed vomiting (i.e. patients continued to experience more than five emetic episodes). Complete protection from acute vomiting was seen in 36.4% of patients, whereas complete protection from delayed vomiting was seen in only one-third of the patients. There was an association between acute nausea/vomiting and delayed nausea/vomiting. Different types of antiemetics need to be offered to Chinese patients receiving chemotherapy (i.e. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or a combination of antiemetics), but more research should be directed to this area.

Stratified administration of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (setrons) for chemotherapy-induced emesis. Economic implications

The serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or 'setrons' have become the standard of care for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis (CIE) and are first-line therapy for acute CIE in healthcare organisations worldwide. However, their superior efficacy versus standard antiemetics comes at a significant cost. Currently, 3 agents are available in the US: ondansetron, granisetron and dolasetron. The most important treatment-related factor contributing to CIE is the emetogenicity of chemotherapy. The ability to customise, or stratify, the setron dose to match the emetogenic challenge of the chemotherapy administered has potential benefits, both clinically and economically. In adults, there is an appreciable amount of clinical literature addressing stratified administration; however, the amount of 'hard' economic data is rather limited. Intuitively, if clinical outcomes are equivalent, then stratified administration should be associated with economic benefits, as it generally promotes the use of doses lower than those recommended by the manufacturer. The literature strongly substantiates this for ondansetron, but is not as favourable for granisetron or dolasetron. As the rationale and justification for dose stratification is contained in the clinical literature, the authors have reviewed the pertinent literature supporting the clinical and economic benefits of dose stratification in both adult and paediatric patients. The authors also provide a discussion of various additional strategies that can be employed to ensure the appropriate and cost-effective use of setrons in real-world practice settings. These strategies include the use of lower doses than recommended by manufacturers, use for acute versus delayed phase emesis, enhancing the antiemetic efficacy by the addition of a corticosteroid, use of oral versus injectable formulations (when appropriate) and the implementation and use of local, national and international drug use guidelines.

The antiemetic efficacy of oral ondansetron plus intravenous dexamethasone in patients with gynecologic malignancies receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop a cost-effective prophylactic antiemetic regimen for the prevention of carboplatin-induced emesis.

METHODS

Patients being treated in the Gynecologic Cancer Program of the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center with a carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimen received a prophylactic antiemetic program consisting of a single dose of oral ondansetron (16 mg) plus intravenous dexamethasone (20 mg) approximately 30 min prior to chemotherapy. Evaluation of the effectiveness of this antiemetic regimen was performed during a single treatment course.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients (median age, 62; range, 41-83) participated in this phase 2 trial. Three patients received single-agent carboplatin, and 24 were treated with either a carboplatin/paclitaxel or carboplatin/docetaxel regimen. The carboplatin AUC dosing level was 4, 5, or 6 in 6, 5, and 16 individuals, respectively. No patient developed vomiting; 2 (7%) individuals experienced nausea during the 24-h period following chemotherapy administration.

CONCLUSION

The combination of a single dose of oral ondansetron (16 mg) plus intravenous dexamethasone (20 mg) is an effective prophylactic antiemetic regimen for patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

Guidelines for anti-emetic therapy: acute emesis

Anti-emetic therapy has become integral to the management of patients with cancer. Goals related to complete emesis control include providing treatment that reduces hospitalisation and time in the ambulatory setting, care that is convenient for the patient and therapy that enhances patients' quality of life. A panel of clinical, health economic and basic scientists with expertise in various oncology disciplines reviewed published literature to develop evidence-based consensus guidelines for the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Currently, serotonin receptor antagonists and corticosteroids are the two categories of anti-emetics that are most effective, have the fewest side-effects and are convenient to use. These agents are recommended in combination for highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens and as single agents or in combination for moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. When possible, these agents may be given orally in single doses; current evidence does not support dose escalation for either category of anti-emetics. In special situations, such as the use of high-dose chemotherapy combination regimens, the most emetogenic component of the regimen should dictate the choice of anti-emetic. Appropriate anti-emetic use described in these guidelines represents both good medical practice and a sensible economic approach to care.