Expert Consensus on Effective Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: An Indian Perspective

An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Multicenter, Observational Study Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Akynzeo® in the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in India

Background Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common and unpleasant treatment-related side effect reported by cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Akynzeo® or NEPA (NEtupitant + PAlonosetron) is the first fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron that targets both critical pathways involved in emesis while providing a convenient, single oral dose therapy. The current study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of NEPA in a real-world setting in India. Methodology This was an open-label, multicenter, prospective, single-arm study conducted at six different locations across India. The study included patients of either gender, aged ≥18 years, naive to chemotherapy, scheduled to receive highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC), and scheduled to receive oral NEPA, as determined by the investigator. Results A total of 360 people were screened and enrolled in the study. HEC was prescribed to 289 (81.64%) patients, while MEC was prescribed to 65 (18.36%) patients. Complete response was achieved in 94.92% of patients during the acute phase, 95.20% during the delayed phase, and 93.22% during the overall phase. During the overall phase, 92.73% and 95.38% of patients on the HEC and MEC regimens, respectively, achieved complete response. Adverse events were reported in 3.88% of patients. Conclusions Oral NEPA was found to be effective in the Indian real-world setting, eliciting a >90% complete response with HEC and MEC regimens across the acute, delayed, and overall phases.

Portuguese consensus on the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting induced by cancer treatments

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) strongly affect the quality of life of patients with cancer. Inadequate antiemetic control leads to the decline of patients' quality of life, increases rescue interventions, and may even compromise adherence to cancer treatment. Although there are international recommendations for controlling CINV and RINV, these recommendations focus mainly on pharmacological management, with scarce information on additional measures that patients may adopt. Moreover, the prophylaxis and management of CINV/RINV are not always applied. Thus, we identified the need to systematize the strategies for preventing and managing CINV/RINV and the associated risk factors to implement and promote effective prophylactic antiemetic regimens therapy in patients with cancer. This review sought to create a set of practical recommendations for managing and controlling CINV/RINV, according to the current international recommendations for antiemetic therapy and the main risk factors. Conclusively, we intended to produce a patient-centered guidance document for health care professionals focused on the awareness, monitoring, and treatment of CINV/RINV.

The longitudinal effects of chronotype on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The object of this longitudinal cohort study was to investigate whether chronotype affects the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

The study included a total of 203 breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy using a regimen of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide with high emetogenicity. Patients received four cycles of chemotherapy in approximately three months. Patients completed questionnaires including the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire (MCTQ) before the first chemotherapy and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool (MAT) after each of the four chemotherapy sessions. To confirm the effect of chronotype on CINV during the four cycles, we performed statistical analyses using a generalized estimating equation (GEE).

RESULTS

CINV occurred in 108 (53.2%), 112 (55.2%), 102 (50.3%), and 62 (30.5%) patients during four cycles of treatment. In the GEE approach, late and early chronotypes (vs. intermediate chronotype) were associated with an increased risk of CINV (late chronotype: odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.99; p < 0.001, early chronotype: OR, 1.84; CI, 1.25-2.73; p = 0.002), which remained significant even after adjusting for age, BMI, antiemetic treatment, history of nausea and vomiting, anxiety, and sleep quality.

CONCLUSION

Chronotype affected CINV across the four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer, suggesting the need to consider chronotype in predicting and managing CINV.

Effect of Acupuncture on Delayed Emesis for the Patients Who Received High-Emetogenic Chemotherapy with Standard Antiemetic Prophylaxis (KHMC-HO-01): An Open-Label, Randomized Study

Background

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most important issues associated with chemotherapy. The additional or synergistic effect of acupuncture on CINV remains controversial.

Methods

Patients were randomized into either the group that received standard antiemetics with acupuncture (Arm A) or standard antiemetics only (Arm C). Acupuncture with manual stimulation was applied at eight predefined points and was started before the first cycle of chemotherapy on the first day and two additional sessions were administered on the second day of chemotherapy. Acute and delayed CINV was assessed using the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching (RINVR) and the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT). The primary outcome was the delayed nausea score assessed using the RINVR.

Results

Overall, 42 patients were included. In the delay phase, the severity of delayed nausea was slightly lower without significance in Arm A than in Arm C (5.35 vs. 5.98, p = 0.3011). Similarly, patients in Arm A reported less severe vomiting than those in Arm C (0.75 vs. 1.25, p = 0.3064). Delayed nausea and vomiting assessed by the MAT showed significant relief with acupuncture compared to standard antiemesis alone. In terms of acute emesis, there was no significant difference between the two arms according to either scoring method.

Conclusions

Delayed nausea after HEC tended to decrease with acupuncture using the RINVR score, though it was also not significant. With the MAT assessment, delayed emesis (nausea and vomiting) was significantly improved with acupuncture, suggesting a promising effect of acupuncture. This trial is registered with KCT0006477.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients: Do We Need to Revisit Guidelines?

Purpose  The objective of this study was to assess the proportion of patients developing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after receiving chemotherapy for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, despite receiving antiemetic prophylaxis (AEP) as per the standard guidelines. Patients and Methods  Between April 2019 and March 2020, all patients planned for chemotherapy were eligible for enrolment in the study. The primary endpoint of the study was the assessment of complete response (CR) rates. Results  Overall, 1,276 consecutive patients were screened for this study, while 738 patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included. A total of 23.2% of the whole cohort failed to achieve CR. Also, 28.2, 16.9, and 16.6% of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC), and high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), respectively, failed to achieve CR. The differences in failure to achieve CR was statistically significant between MEC and HEC ( p < 0.001) groups. Among MEC group, there was no difference between those who received oxaliplatin (27.8%) versus nonoxaliplatin regimens (25.8%) in terms of failure rates ( p = 0.613). Conclusion  Approximately one-fourth of patients failed to achieve a complete response from CINV in GI cancers despite using guideline-based AEP. Patients receiving MEC had the highest failure rates suggesting a need to improve AEP in these patients.