Antiemetic control: toward a new standard of care for emetogenic chemotherapy

The Endocannabinoid System: A Potential Target for the Treatment of Various Diseases

The Endocannabinoid System (ECS) is primarily responsible for maintaining homeostasis, a balance in internal environment (temperature, mood, and immune system) and energy input and output in living, biological systems. In addition to regulating physiological processes, the ECS directly influences anxiety, feeding behaviour/appetite, emotional behaviour, depression, nervous functions, neurogenesis, neuroprotection, reward, cognition, learning, memory, pain sensation, fertility, pregnancy, and pre-and post-natal development. The ECS is also involved in several pathophysiological diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases. In recent years, genetic and pharmacological manipulation of the ECS has gained significant interest in medicine, research, and drug discovery and development. The distribution of the components of the ECS system throughout the body, and the physiological/pathophysiological role of the ECS-signalling pathways in many diseases, all offer promising opportunities for the development of novel cannabinergic, cannabimimetic, and cannabinoid-based therapeutic drugs that genetically or pharmacologically modulate the ECS via inhibition of metabolic pathways and/or agonism or antagonism of the receptors of the ECS. This modulation results in the differential expression/activity of the components of the ECS that may be beneficial in the treatment of a number of diseases. This manuscript in-depth review will investigate the potential of the ECS in the treatment of various diseases, and to put forth the suggestion that many of these secondary metabolites of Cannabis sativa L. (hereafter referred to as "C. sativa L." or "medical cannabis"), may also have potential as lead compounds in the development of cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals for a variety of diseases.

Oral cannabinoid for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting-a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a burdensome adverse event frequently associated with chemotherapy treatment of cancer. Evidence suggests that cannabinoid CB2 receptors are present in brainstem neurons, and thus, there may exist a role for cannabinoids to counter CINV. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of oral cannabinoids compared with other treatments as documented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE up until December 31, 2018; Embase Classic and Embase up until 2018 week 53; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until November 2018. Study data were extracted and included in this meta-analysis if they reported on at least one of the following efficacy endpoints: no nausea and no vomiting, no nausea, and no vomiting. The Mantel-Haenszel method and random effects analysis model were used, to generate odds ratio (OR) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

In the setting of prophylactic treatment against both nausea and vomiting, oral cannabinoid was more efficacious than placebo or other studied antiemetic treatments. When controlling for vomiting, oral cannabinoid was equally as efficacious as others. Against nausea, oral cannabinoid was equally as effective as other treatments. A greater percentage of patients administered oral cannabinoid for CINV experienced dysphoria, euphoria, and sedation.

CONCLUSION

Although there exists some evidence suggesting that oral cannabinoids may have a role in controlling for emesis from a neurophysiological perspective, these conclusions are currently not mirrored in the published RCTs to date. However, there exists only a limited number of RCTs, comparisons with older treatment regimens and a lack of standard reporting practice across published literature. Further RCTs should investigate the efficacy and safety of oral cannabinoids, to secure a better picture of the efficacy of oral cannabinoids against CINV.

Corticosteroids, the oldest agent in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: What about the guidelines?

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most disturbing side effects of cancer treatment. Research in antiemetic therapy has progressed gradually since the early eighties, and the development of antiemetic agents continues. This review focuses on the current management of CINV based on the most recent guidelines, and adherence to the latter is examined more carefully. Setrons (5HT3 receptor antagonists), corticosteroids, and NK-1 receptor antagonists are the cornerstones of antiemetic therapy. Corticosteroids are one of the oldest agents in the prevention of CINV. They are highly effective, increase the effect of other antiemetic agents, and are cost-effective. The latest developed 5HT3 receptor antagonist palonosetron led to an update of the guidelines of CINV. Other types include benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, and olanzapine. Various factors contribute to the overall risk of developing CINV, such as patient characteristics, emetogenic potency of the chemotherapeutic agents, and correct prevention of CINV. Current guidelines determine which is the right preventive regimen for each cancer patient at risk for experiencing CINV. Adherence to these guidelines and implementation in daily practice seem to be below the optimal level. In Belgium, authorities use the guidelines as a base for reimbursement and this has increased the level of implementation.

Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.

The impact of marijuana policies on youth: clinical, research, and legal update

This technical report updates the 2004 American Academy of Pediatrics technical report on the legalization of marijuana. Current epidemiology of marijuana use is presented, as are definitions and biology of marijuana compounds, side effects of marijuana use, and effects of use on adolescent brain development. Issues concerning medical marijuana specifically are also addressed. Concerning legalization of marijuana, 4 different approaches in the United States are discussed: legalization of marijuana solely for medical purposes, decriminalization of recreational use of marijuana, legalization of recreational use of marijuana, and criminal prosecution of recreational (and medical) use of marijuana. These approaches are compared, and the latest available data are presented to aid in forming public policy. The effects on youth of criminal penalties for marijuana use and possession are also addressed, as are the effects or potential effects of the other 3 policy approaches on adolescent marijuana use. Recommendations are included in the accompanying policy statement.

Therapeutic and preventive antiemetic effect of aprepitant in Japanese patients with thoracic malignancies who truly need it

PURPOSE

Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist is recommended for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and has recently been introduced to oncology practice in Japan. However, whether all patients undergoing HEC truly need NK-1 receptor antagonist remains unknown, and increasing medical costs due to uniform use of NK-1 receptor antagonist are a concern. This study was conducted to examine the prevalence of patients who needed aprepitant at the time of its introduction in Japan, and therapeutic and preventive effects of aprepitant on HEC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients with thoracic malignancies who were to undergo HEC or MEC received 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to prevent CINV. Aprepitant was administered to treat CINV occurring in the first course, or to prevent CINV in the second course. Frequency of vomiting, degree of nausea, and quality of life with respect to CINV were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 96 patients were enrolled. Aprepitant was not administered in 57 and 88 % of patients who received HEC and MEC, respectively. In patients treated with aprepitant (n = 18), therapeutic use of aprepitant after occurrence of CINV (n = 9) decreased average scores in numerical rating scale for nausea from 7.44 to 5.44 (p = 0.10), and average frequency of vomiting per day from 2.11 to 0.11 (p = 0.03). Prophylactic use of aprepitant in the second course (n = 18) increased the proportion of patients with no significant nausea from 6 % (first course) to 50 % (second course; p = 0.007), and those with no vomiting from 33 to 89 % (p = 0.002). Aprepitant use also significantly improved quality of life with respect to CINV in the second course.

CONCLUSION

More than half of patients receiving HEC and 88 % of patients receiving MEC did not use aprepitant. Aprepitant showed significant therapeutic and preventive effects on CINV in patients who truly needed it.

Efficacy of aprepitant in patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy of a combination of aprepitant and conventional antiemetic therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

METHODS

Patients with advanced or recurrent lung cancer who were treated with MEC regimens at the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Fukuoka University Hospital, were included and classified into the following groups: control group (treatment: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists + dexamethasone) and aprepitant group (treatment: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists + dexamethasone + aprepitant). The presence or absence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) was evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0; patients with grade 1 or above were considered positive for CINV. Food intake per day, completion of planned chemotherapy, and progression-free survival (PFS) achieved by chemotherapy were investigated.

RESULTS

The complete suppression rate of nausea in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (p = 0.0043). Throughout the study, the food intake in the aprepitant group was greater than that in the control group, with the rate being significantly higher, in particular, on day 5 (p = 0.003). The completion rate of planned chemotherapy was also higher in the aprepitant group (p = 0.042). PFS did not differ significantly, but tended to be improved in the aprepitant group.

CONCLUSIONS

The aprepitant group showed significantly higher complete suppression of nausea, food intake on day 5, and completion of planned chemotherapy than the control group.

Impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on quality of life in indonesian patients with gynecologic cancer

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) has become a major outcome in the treatment of patients with cancer. This study is aimed at examining the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on QoL of patients with gynecologic cancer in Indonesia.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients with gynecologic cancer, who were treated with cisplatin at a dosage 50 mg/m or higher as monotherapy or as part of combination chemotherapy regimens, were recruited in the Oncology Department, Dr. Sardjito Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Quality of life was assessed by using the Indonesian version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer of Quality of Life Questionnaire and Short Form-36, administered immediately before and on day 5 after chemotherapy administration. Patients used a daily diary to record nausea and vomiting during 5 days after chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Most (74.9%) of the 179 patients experienced delayed emesis during the 5 days after chemotherapy despite prophylactic use of antiemetics. The delayed nausea and emesis caused significant negative impact on patients' QoL. Nausea in the delayed phase caused negative effects on patients' QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients reported a negative impact on the QoL of delayed emesis after chemotherapy. Poor prophylaxis of patients' nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy interferes with patients' QoL. Medical and behavioral interventions may help to alleviate the negative consequences of chemotherapeutic treatment in patients with gynecologic cancers treated with suboptimal antiemetics.

Cardiovascular events in cancer patients treated with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: results from a population-based study

Studies on cardiovascular safety in cancer patients treated with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC), who may have taken the antiemetic, aprepitant, have been limited to clinical trials and postmarketing spontaneous reports. Our study explored background rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events among HEC- or MEC-treated cancer patients in a population-based setting to contextualize events seen in a new drug development program and to determine at a high level whether rates differed by aprepitant usage. Medical and pharmacy claims data from the 2005–2007 IMPACT National Benchmark Database were classified into emetogenic chemotherapy categories and CVD outcomes. Among 5827 HEC/MEC-treated patients, frequencies were highest for hypertension (16–21%) and composites of venous (7–12%) and arterial thromboembolic events (4–7%). Aprepitant users generally did not experience higher frequencies of events compared to nonusers. Our study serves as a useful benchmark of background CVD event rates in a population-based setting of cancer patients.

Supportive care in hemato-oncology: a review in light of the latest guidelines

Recent developments in cancer therapy have resulted in increases in treatment success rates and survival. One of thebasic goals of such therapy is improving patient quality of life. Chemotherapy protocols for solid or hematologicalmalignancies-most of which include multiple agents-negatively impact patient quality of life. Additionally, there havebeen developments in supportive care, which seeks to ameliorate or minimize the negative effects of chemotherapy.Herein we present a review and brief summarization of some of the agents used for supportive care in cancer patientsin light of the latest guidelines.

The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication

The endocannabinoid system is implicated in a variety of physiological and pathological conditions (inflammation, immunomodulation, analgesia, cancer and others). The main active ingredient of cannabis, Δ(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ(9) -THC), produces its effects through activation of CB(1) and CB(2) receptors. CB(1) receptors are expressed at high levels in the central nervous system (CNS), whereas CB(2) receptors are concentrated predominantly, although not exclusively, in cells of the immune system. Endocannabinoids are endogenous lipid-signalling molecules that are generated in the cell membrane from phospholipid precursors. The two best characterized endocannabinoids identified to date are anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG). Here we review the relationship between the endocannabinoid system and anti-tumour actions (inhibition of cell proliferation and migration, induction of apoptosis, reduction of tumour growth) of the cannabinoids in different types of cancer. This review will focus on examining how activation of the endocannabinoid system impacts breast, prostate and bone cancers in both in vitro and in vivo systems. The therapeutic potential of cannabinoids for cancer, as identified in clinical trials, is also discussed. Identification of safe and effective treatments to manage and improve cancer therapy is critical to improve quality of life and reduce unnecessary suffering in cancer patients. In this regard, cannabis-like compounds offer therapeutic potential for the treatment of breast, prostate and bone cancer in patients. Further basic research on anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids as well as clinical trials of cannabinoid therapeutic efficacy in breast, prostate and bone cancer is therefore warranted.

Impact of initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus ondansetron on risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer receiving multi-day chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to examine the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) among lung cancer patients receiving multi-day chemotherapy and ondansetron- or palonosetron-initiated prophylactic antiemetic regimens in a community oncology setting.

METHODS

The Georgia Cancer Specialists electronic medical records database was used to retrospectively identify lung cancer patients who received multi-day cisplatin or carboplatin regimens with ondansetron or palonosetron on day 1 between April 1, 2006 and July 31, 2009. Uncontrolled CINV events were identified through ICD-9-CM codes (nausea/vomiting), CPT codes (dehydration), rescue medications, nausea/vomiting hospitalizations, and/or antiemetic therapy after last chemotherapy administration of the cycle. Risk for uncontrolled CINV, up to 7 days after last chemotherapy administration, was analyzed at cycle level using logistic regression with regressors of gender, age, number of chemotherapy administration days, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer type, multicancer diagnoses, and chemotherapy regimen.

RESULTS

A total of 209 palonosetron and 153 ondansetron patients (702 and 515 cycles, respectively) met the inclusion criteria. Palonosetron patients were significantly older (mean 67.9 versus 63.9 years; P < 0.0001), with no significant difference in gender, baseline comorbidity score, or multicancer diagnosis. Palonosetron cycles had 63% lower risk for uncontrolled CINV events versus ondansetron cycles [odds ratio (OR) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.54; P < 0.0001]. Sub-analysis by chemotherapy supported overall analysis (cisplatin OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.04-0.25; P < 0.0001; carboplatin OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.30-0.70; P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis of lung cancer patients, multi-day chemotherapy cycles administered with palonosetron on day 1 were associated with a significantly lower risk for uncontrolled CINV events versus ondansetron-initiated chemotherapy cycles.

Anti-emetic drugs in oncology: pharmacology and individualization by pharmacogenetics

OBJECTIVE

Nausea and vomiting are the most distressful side effects of cytotoxic drugs in cancer patients. Antiemetics are commonly used to reduce these side effects. However, the current antiemetic efficacy is about 70-80% in patients treated with highly-emetogenic cytotoxic drugs. One of the potential factors explaining this suboptimal response is variability in genes encoding enzymes and proteins which play a role in metabolism, transport and receptors related to antiemetic drugs. Aim of this review was to describe the pharmacology and pharmacogenetic concepts of of antiemetics in oncology.

METHOD

Pharmacogenetic and pharmacology studies of antiemetics in oncology published between January 1997 and February 2010 were searched in PubMed. Furthermore, related textbooks were also used for exploring the pharmacology of antiemetic drugs. The antiemetic drugs which were searched were the 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs), dopamine antagonists, corticosteroids, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, antihistamines and neurokinin-1 antagonists.

RESULT

The 5-HT3RAs are widely used in highly emetogenic chemotherapy in combination with dexamethasone and a neurokinin-1 antagonist, especially in acute phase. However, the dopamine antagonists and benzodiazepines were found more appropriate for use in breakthrough and anticipatory symptoms or in preventing the delayed phase of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. The use of cannabinoids and antihistamines need further investigation. Only six articles on pharmacogenetics of the 5-HT3RAs in highly emetogenic chemotherapy are published. Specifically, these studies investigated the association of the efficacy of 5-HT3RAs and variants in the multi drug resistance 1 (MDR1) gene, 5-HT3A,B and C receptor genes and CYP2D6 gene. The pharmacogenetic studies of the other antiemetics were not found in this review.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that pharmacogenetic studies with antiemetics are sparse. It is too early to implement results of pharmacogenetic association studies of antiemetic drugs in clinical practice: confirmation of early findings is required.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most disturbing side effects of cancer treatment. Research in anti-emetic therapy progressed gradually since the early eighties and the development of anti-emetic agents continues. This review focuses on the current management of CINV based on the most recent guidelines and adherence to the latter is examined more carefully. Setrons (5HT3 receptor antagonists), corticosteroids and NK-1 receptor antagonists are the cornerstones of anti-emetic therapy. The latest developed palonosetron and casopitant proved to be highly promising in clinical trials. Other types include benzodiazepines, cannabinoids and olanzapine. Various risk factors contribute to the overall risk of developing CINV, such as patient characteristics, emetogenic potency of the chemotherapeutic agents and correct prevention of CINV. Current guidelines determine which is the right preventive regimen for each cancer patient at risk for experiencing CINV. Adherence to this guidelines and implementation in daily practice seem to be below the optimal level. In Belgium, authorities use the guidelines as a base for reimbursement and this has increased the level of implementation.

Pharmacological management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children with cancer

Nausea and vomiting are respectively the first and third most relevant chemotherapy-associated side effects in pediatric oncology, despite the introduction of new antiemetic agents. Symptoms change according to the antineoplastic agents used, and are influenced by age since emotional and psychological aspects play an important role. Studies conducted on new antiemetic therapies usually focus on adult populations affected by tumors, whereas there are very few series including pediatric patients, who are even more severely affected by this specific side effect.

Palonosetron in prevention of nausea and vomiting after highly emetogenic chemotherapy before haematopoietic stem cell transplantation-single center experience

OBJECTIVE

A clinical study of palonosetron was performed to evaluate its efficacy in preventing both acute and delayed emesis after high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) using a historical control group of patients treated with ondansetron as the comparative drug.

METHODS

Among the 46 evaluated patients 20 with lymphoma received BEAM as the conditioning regimen; 16 has relapsed germ cell tumors treated with CARBOPEC; and 10 with acute myeloid leukemia received BuCY. Increasing severity of nausea was evaluated according to the following 4-grade scale: none (no nausea); mild (slight nausea but no disruption to daily activities); moderate (nausea and some disruption to daily activities); and severe (extreme nausea and severe disruption to daily activities). The emetic response rate was evaluated using the criteria: complete (no emetic episode); major (1-2 episodes); minor (3-5 episodes); and failure (>5 episodes). The response rate of the study drugs was evaluated by the following 4-grade scale based on the condition of nausea and vomiting: highly effective, moderately effective, slightly effective, and not effective.

RESULTS

Patients treated with palonosetron showed significantly greater response rates than those receiving ondansetron during the both the acute and the delayed phases: highly and moderately effective: acute phase 15% versus 5% CARBOPEC; 70% versus 35% BEAM and 32% versus 20% BuCY; delayed phase: 60% versus 30% BuCY; 100% versus 50% BEAM and 25% versus 10% CARBOPEC.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose palonosetron was more effective than ondansetron treatment to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting following HDC before HSCT.

Aprepitant: a review of its use in the prevention of nausea and vomiting

Aprepitant (Emend) is a neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist that is able to alleviate the emetic effects of substance P. When combined with a standard regimen of a corticosteroid (dexamethasone) and a serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist (ondansetron), oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 then 80 mg once daily on days 2 and 3) was effective in the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with single or multiple cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). This aprepitant regimen was also effective in the prevention of CINV in patients treated with single or multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). A single oral dose of aprepitant 40 mg administered prior to patients undergoing abdominal surgery was also effective in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Aprepitant was generally well tolerated. Aprepitant is a recommended option for the treatment of PONV, and when combined with a corticosteroid and 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist is a recommended regimen for the treatment of CINV.

Neuropeptides and inflammatory bowel disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic intestinal inflammatory condition, the pathophysiology of which is not well understood. It has, however, become increasingly evident that interactions between the enteric nervous system and the immune system play an important role in the cause of IBD. Both the enteric nervous system and the central nervous system can amplify or modulate the aspects of intestinal inflammation through secretion of neuropeptides or small molecules. The purpose of this study is to present recent data on the role that neuropeptides play in the pathophysiology of IBD.

RECENT FINDINGS

The best studied of the neuropeptides thought to play a role in the pathogenesis of IBD include substance P, corticotropin-releasing hormone, neurotensin, and vasoactive intestinal peptide; small molecules include acetylcholine and serotonin. Recently discovered functions of each of these neuropeptides with a discussion of implications of the data for therapy are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Although the available data suggest an important role for neuropeptides in the pathophysiology of intestinal inflammation, there does yet not appear to be a function that can be taken as established for any of these molecules. The complexity of neuroimmune-endocrine systems, conflicting study results and dual mechanisms of action, warrant further research in this field. Clarification of the molecular mechanisms of action of neuropeptides and on immune and inflammatory reactions will likely yield new treatment options in the future.