Auricular acupuncture for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A pilot study of a blinded randomized clinical trial

Background:Nausea and vomiting are among the most common and distressing side effects of chemotherapy. Difference in views about the effectiveness of auricular acupuncture (AA) versus electroacupuncture (EA) of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) lies at the heart of the debate. The aim of this study is to compare the antiemetic efficacy and safety of AA and EA for CINV.Methods:One hundred twenty participants, 18 to 75 years old malignant tumors will receiving chemotherapy with cisplatin, will be recruited and randomized into 3 groups equally, Group A (the AA group), Group B (the EA group), and Group C (the control group). The participants in Group A and Group B will receive AA or EA regimens, alternatively, beginning on the day before first day of chemotherapy for a third consecutive cycles. All participants will continue to receive conventional treatment. The incidence and severity of CINV will be assessed using the definition and classification of nausea and vomiting (NCI-CTC AE4.0) and the MASCC (Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer) Antiemesis Tool (MAT). Secondary outcome measures include the degree of abdominal distension, the first time of flatus and defecation, and life quality. Additionally, adverse events will also be documented during the period of the treatment.Discussion:This trial may provide evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of AA versus EA for CINV following cisplatin-based regimens.Trail registration:This study is registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000040942.

Background: Anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) is a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen. Combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) is guideline-recommended for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in HEC and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. CMS’ OP-35 measure deems 30-day post-chemotherapy acute care as avoidable if involving nausea and emesis (NV) or any of 8 other toxicities. Results will be publicly reported and impact Medicare reimbursement. CMS (2017) found that 10% of >58,000 patients with avoidable acute care after chemotherapy involved NV. Because NEPA is new, insufficient real world data exist to assess its CINV resource use. CINV-related acute-care after NEPA prophylaxis in AC has been reported in a prospective clinical trial. Our aim was to compare these rates to those seen after prophylaxis with other antiemetics for AC outside of a clinical trial. Methods: Pre-specified endpoints in a prospective trial of oral or IV NEPA + DEX in AC included acute-care use (emergency [ED] visits or inpatient admissions [IP]) involving CINV, defined as emesis or rescue drug use ≤5 days after AC, and concomitant ED/IP in the same period. We also evaluated CINV-related acute care after non-NEPA prophylaxis for AC in breast cancer from 10/2012-8/2018 in IBM Explorys electronic health records. We age-matched patients 3:1 to the NEPA trial. We further adjusted the event rate to address under-reporting of a) CINV rates (vs. 49.2% for aprepitant in AC in a clinical trial [Warr 2005]) and b) acute-care use, projected at 17-50% at sites external to the dataset. To compare the resulting adjusted event rate to the NEPA study, we conducted 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, using random probabilities from 5.2-8.7% for Explorys patients, and from 0-2% for NEPA patients to address potential reporting variability, despite the trial including daily patient diaries. Analysis of data was limited to the first two cycles, the median duration in the NEPA trial. Results: In the NEPA trial, 402 patients received ≥1 cycle; 391 completed two cycles. Nine patients had IP admissions; none involved CINV. Five patients had 6 total ED visits; one met criteria for involving CINV; the resulting rate of acute care rate involving CINV was 0.25 per 100 patients. For other antiemetics, 2598 patients received AC (excluding NEPA prophylaxis). Among 1206 age-matched to the NEPA trial, 15 patients had acute-care events in the first 2 cycles, (1.24 per 100 patients), an odds ratio of 1:5.1 (CI 0.7-38.5) in favor of NEPA. After adjusting via the simulation, the odds ratio was 1:8.3 (CI: 2.43-24.21) in favor of NEPA. Conclusions: Comparing CINV-related acute care seen in a large prospective trial relative to real-world evidence in patients with breast cancer treated with AC, <1% of patients receiving NEPA prophylaxis required acute care for CINV; the CINV-related acute-care risks seen with other antiemetic prophylaxis were 5 times (unadjusted) to 8 times (adjusted) the levels for NEPA. A similar comparison using only real world data should be conducted as data permit. Citation Format: Lee Schwartzberg, Kathryn J Ruddy, Rudolph M Navari, Thomas W LeBlanc, Rebecca Clark-Snow, Rita Wickham, Gary Binder, William L. Bailey, Ravi Potluri, Luke M Schmerold, Eros Papademetriou, Eric J Roeland. Avoidable acute care involving chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) with NEPA prophylaxis relative to other antiemetics: An external control arm analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-14-07.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and feared side effects of chemotherapy especially in breast cancer. Despite recent advances in pharmacologic antiemetic therapy, additional treatment for break- through CINV is needed. Auriculotherapy, is a safe alternative medicine procedure with minimal side effects; several ran- domized controlled clinical trials have suggested its efficacy in controlling this side effect. A recent randomized controlled clinical trial in Iran , demonstrated that Auriculotherapy, significantly reduced the proportion of patients experiencing acute stress and vomiting during IVF. That trial, however, did not show that Auriculotherapy, significantly alleviated acute chemotherapy-induced nausea or delayed CINV. The clinical relevance of these results were limited by the fact that they predated the use of aprepitant and that only few Auriculotherapy points were stimulated during Auriculotherapy, treatment. More clinical trials to study the effect of acupuncture with additional antiemetic acupuncture points in ad- junct to modern pharmacologic antiemetic therapy are needed. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and feared treatment-related side effects among patients with cancer especially in breast cancer . Over the past decade, better understanding of the physiology of CINV and subsequent development of modern pharma- cologic antiemetic agents have substantially improved the control of CINV. However, a study suggests that CINV remains a significant problem among these patients.2 In addition, pharmacologic antiemetic agents are expensive and associated with potential side effects, and therefore exploring nonpharmacologic options for controlling CINV is important. Auric- ulotherapy, is an Chinese , europian medical technique proven to be effective and safe in treating multiple conditions, including nausea and vomiting caused by pregnancy,3 sea sickness,4 surgery,5 and chemotherapy.

e24133 Background: The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on work loss and activity impairment is important to patients yet not well described in literature. We sought to evaluate CINV-related work loss and activity impairment and their associations with CINV duration. Methods: In a prospective CINV prophylaxis trial of oral or intravenous netupitant/palonestron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (DEX) (12mg day 1 only) for patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), we defined CINV as vomiting or use of rescue medication during days 1-5 after AC. Pre-specified endpoints included CINV duration (0-5 days), patient reported CINV-associated work loss (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment survey), and CINV-related impaired activity [0 (none) - (worst) Likert scale] for chemotherapy cycles 1 and 2. CINV-related work loss and activity impairment could involve nausea with or without vomiting or rescue medication use. We categorized CINV duration as 1-2 days (d) or ≥3 d, and compared results using the chi-squared test. We report here on the first 2 cycles. Results: Survey data was captured for 792 cycles in 402 female patients including 132 (32.8%) employed patients. Mean age was 55.4. CINV was observed in 173 (21.8%) of total cycles. CINV-related work loss was reported in 26 (3.3% of all cycles, 15.0% of cycles with CINV, 38.2% of employed patient cycles with CINV) while 142 had related activity impairment. When we categorized cycles by CINV duration, CINV-related work loss was seen in 25.9% of 81 cycles with ≥3 d CINV duration vs. 5.4% for 92 cycles of 1-2 d of CINV (p < 0.001); mean scores of CINV-related impaired activity were 5.0 for ≥3 d CINV vs 3.0 for 1-2 d CINV (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Despite guideline recommended prophylaxis, CINV occurred in > 20% of AC cycles. In cycles with CINV, CINV-related work loss occurred in 38.2% for employed patients while activity impairment occurred in 82.1% for all patient cycles. The majority of CINV lasted 1-2 d. Notably, ≥3 d of CINV was associated with considerably higher levels of work loss and activity impairment suggesting that duration may be a meaningful measure of CINV impact. Clinical trial information: NCT03403712 . [Table: see text]

Background: Although many studies have demonstrated consistent levels of effectiveness of CINV prophylaxis for the entire study population across multiple chemotherapy cycles, rarely have studies reported how each patient’s risk of subsequent CINV differs based on prior cycle breakthrough CINV with the same prophylaxis. We lack data on whether prophylaxis continues to fail in the same group of patients each cycle, or whether failure is random with each subsequent cycle. We sought to evaluate individual patients’ risk of repeat CINV in each subsequent chemotherapy cycle. Methods: In a prospective, 4-cycle CINV prophylaxis trial of oral or intravenous combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) + dexamethasone (day 1) for patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC), we defined CINV as vomiting or use of rescue medication during days 1-5 after chemotherapy. Patients without CINV were classified as complete response (CR); the rest as treatment failure (TF). We analyzed patients’ sequences of CR and TF, and compared CR or TF for cycles 2-4 based on cycle 1 outcomes, using chi-square statistics. To provide context, we performed a post-hoc similar analysis of results reported by Herrstedt et al [2005] from a clinical trial of ondansetron + aprepitant (APR) for patients with breast cancer receiving 4 cycles of AC. Results: The 402 female patients in the NEPA trial received a total of 1,299 cycles. In cycle 1, 99 (24.6%) patients experienced TF (TF1); over all 4 cycles, TF occurred 253 times (19.5%). Patients with CR in cycle 1 (CR1) had a ≥92% rate of CR in cycle 2; their rates of repeat CR were similar in each subsequent cycle. Patients with TF1 had nearly equal risk of CR or TF in cycle 2 (45:55); thereafter 85% of this TF1 subgroup repeated their cycle 2 outcome (CR or TF) in cycles 3 and 4. Over all cycles of NEPA, patients with CR1 subsequently had CR in >90% of cycles 2-4; those with TF1 subsequently had TF in 49.8% of cycles 2-4 (p<0.0001) (see Table). We separately examined Herrstedt’s evaluation of 433 patients across 1537 cycles with APR. In cycle 1, TF was seen 213 times (49.2%), with TF reported in 46.7% of cycles 1-4. We found that patients with CR1 had an 80.5% rate of CR in cycle 2 and repeat CR rates were higher in subsequent cycles. Patients with TF1 had TF in cycle 2 (TF2) at a rate of 78.4%, with 76.6% TF3 and 72.7% TF4. For APR, CR1 resulted in subsequent CR in 78.6% of cycles 2-4 while patients with TF1 again had TF in 74.8% of cycles 2-4 (p<0.0001). Patients with TF1 were more likely to later drop from the study (see Table). Notably, among those with CR1 after APR, the few patients who later had TF in any cycle, had a subsequent repeat failure rate similar to those with TF1. Conclusions: When patients receiving guideline-recommended triple antiemetic prophylaxis successfully avoided CINV in their first cycle of HEC, they had 80-95% likelihood of repeating that success in later cycles. After NEPA, those whose prophylaxis failed in cycle 1 did not face a similar high risk of repeat failure in cycle 2. The pattern of repeat failure after aprepitant was different, with a high repeat failure risk starting in cycle 2. These findings strongly suggest that consistent population average CR rates reported across cycles may mask a higher repeat failure rate for individual patients that experience cycle 1 CINV, particularly for aprepitant. Further study of this phenomenon is needed for other HEC regimens, and to confirm the lack of high repeat failure seen in cycle 2 for NEPA. Repeat CINV in Later Cycles, Based on Cycle 1 ResultsNEPAAprepitant + OndansetronInitial Cycle Result (n/total initial cycles)CR1 (303/402)TF1 (99/402)CR1 vs TF1 (P value)CR1 (220/433)TF1 (213/433)CR1 vs TF1 (P value)Subsequent CR cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)636 (93.0%)107 (50.2%)<0.0001464 (78.6%)124 (25.2%)<0.0001Subsequent TF cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)48 (7.0%)106 (49.8%)126 (21.4%)370 (74.8%)Total subsequent cycles (n, % of total subseq. cycles)684 (100%)213 (100%)590 (100%)494 (100%)Dropped vs ITT* (n, % ITT cycles)225 (24.8%)84 (28.3%)0.226370 (10.6%)145 (22.7%)<0.0001* The NEPA trial was closed when the last patient completed the first cycle, resulting in an artificially high proportion of patients that did not complete 4 cycles. Citation Format: Rudolph M Navari, Gary Binder, Alexander Molassiotis, Eric Roeland, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Thomas W. LeBlanc, Dwight D. Kloth, Silvia Sebastiani, Lina Y. Dimberg, Luke M. Schmerold, Xing Liu, Lee Schwartzberg. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) risk after prior breakthrough CINV: Unmasking the false average [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS13-09.

Background: Chemotherapy is a common treatment in childhood cancer but causes significant side effects, among the most notable being nausea and vomiting, known as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Pharmacological antiemetics and complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) have been studied separately to manage CINV, but a gap exists in understanding their use together. We aimed to investigate the potential multimodal effects of CIM and pharmacological antiemetics on CINV in pediatric oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy. Method: Systematic searches were conducted in four databases to identify studies evaluating the efficacy of CIM in combination with pharmacological antiemetics in patients ages 0-21 with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Relevant data were extracted from each study and evaluated. Results: Eighteen sources examining CIM therapies in three distinct categories (herbal, physical, and psychological) were identified. Three of four herbal interventions yielded significant results, all of which implemented oral ginger. Physical interventions included manual and wristband acupressure, auricular acupuncture, and needle and laser acupuncture. Significant results were found in only four of these 10 studies. Among psychological interventions, two of four yielded significant results. Discussion: There is no clear evidence of benefit from CIM therapies in addition to pharmacological antiemetics to better control CINV. However, this review provides support and direction for future research to examine potential effects. Complementary therapies generally have little potential for harm, are relatively low cost, and low burden. Therefore, if there is a perceived benefit for patients and families, complementary and integrative therapies should be considered.

Cost-Effectiveness of Aprepitant for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

10 Background: More than 70% of patients receiving chemotherapy will experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Chemotherapeutic regimens (regimens) are classified as highly emetogenic, moderately emetogenic, low potential, or minimal risk for emesis. The NCCN has recently reclassified carboplatin emetogenicity according to the AUC (target area under the concentration versus time curve) with a carboplatin AUC ≥4 classified as highly emetogenic and carboplatin AUC < 4 as moderately emetogenic - but highly emetogenic in certain patients. This study assessed use of anti-emetic agents in carboplatin based regimens. Methods: This study consisted of a retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from multiple commercial health plans. Claims from 1/1/2010-10/31/2017 were analyzed. Index date for each patient was the first medical claim of the regimen of interest. Included patients had ≥1 medical claim for the selected regimen and were eligible for both medical and pharmacy benefits for ≥6 months prior to, and 12 months post index date. CINV-related hospitalizations and ER cost and utilization were assessed for patients treated with carboplatin based regimens. Results: In total, 4,430 mostly female (74%) patients met criteria for treatment with a carboplatin-based index regimen. Between 2010 and 2017, the following trends were noted in the study population: Adherence to NCCN recommended 3 drug CINV prophylaxis (triplet therapy) ranged from about 23% to 35%. The rate of CINV related emergency department (ED) visits was 5.3% and the overall rate of CINV related inpatient visits was 0.11%. The average cost for CINV related hospitalization for a carboplatin patient was $8,562 (SD 6,207) with an average LOS of 3.1 days. ED visits that were CINV related cost $2,463 on average (SD 3,054). Conclusions: Guidelines recommend use of up to three agents in the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. Use of a triplet therapy for CINV prophylaxis in carboplatin based highly emetogenic regimens has increased over time in the plans analyzed and may offer an opportunity to reduce rate of CINV related hospitalizations and ED visits, as well as associated costs.

6587 Background: One of our interests has been whether palonosetron(P) would be superior to granisetron(G) when administering triplet antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV, since a prior trial demonstrated P to be superior to G for controlling CINV induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in doublet therapy. In this study(TTT; trial for antiemetic therapy), we assessed the efficacies of P and G for use as triplet antiemetic therapy for AC, by monitoring CINV, focusing complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medicine) in the delayed phase. The primary endpoint of TTT was a CR during the delayed phase with 5-HT3ra plus dexamethasone and aprepitant administration for AC. The purpose of gaining insights into the possible mechanism of action of aprepitant and P was to obtain ideas for the next strategy against CINV. Methods: Between 2012 and 2015, 491 breast cancer receiving AC were recruited from 11 institutions, and randomly assigned to either single-dose P(0.75mg) or G(40μg/kg) prior to AC on day 1, both with dexamethasone (9.9 mg) and aprepitant (125mg) on day 1 followed by additional doses (80mg) on days 2 and 3. Age, institution and habitual alcohol intake were used as stratification factors. The primary endpoint was a CR. Results: All 491 patients were included in efficacy analyses: 246 patients in the group P and 245 in the group G. The difference in CR during the delayed phase, i.e. 24 hrs after the administration of AC, did not reach statistical significance, however, there was a remarkable difference between 48 and 72 hrs in the day-to-day analysis(p < 0.02). Conclusions: P showed better efficacy in controlling CINV between 48 to 72 hours after AC, than G as triplet antiemetic therapy for AC. We can reasonably speculate that the influence of serotonin has two peaks (0-24 hrs and 48-72 hrs). For controlling CINV in the delayed phase, not only an NK1 receptor antagonist but also administering a 5-HT3ra with long life should be considered until 72 hrs after HEC. Clinical trial information: UMIN 000007882.

3072 Palonosetron plus a three-day aprepitant and dexamethasone schedule to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are distressing side effects of chemotherapy. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs) have been incorporated in the contemporary management of CINV. However, clinical studies on NK1-RAs have shown mixed results in reducing CINV risk. Most studies focused on the use of aprepitant (APR) and casopitant (CAS) in breast cancer patients receiving AC-type (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy. In this study, we compared the study design and clinical efficacies of these NK1-RAs in reducing CINV risk. Among the selected eight studies, 4 APR Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), 2 APR Observational Studies (OSs) and 2 CAS RCTs were identified. Patient-related characteristics such as the proportion of females (60.0% - 100.0%), age (46.5 - 59.5 years), histories of motion (5.6% - 47.0% in NK1-RA arms) and morning sicknesses (14.2% - 45.0% in NK1-RA arms) and types of antiemetic regimens; as well as chemotherapy-related characteristics such as the proportion of patients on AC chemotherapy (15.0% - 100.0%) varied greatly. In terms of efficacies, both APR and CAS improved overall CR and vomiting in majority of the studies. None of the studies, however, demonstrated that NK1-RA could provide adequate nausea control. To conclude, NK1-RAs are effective in improving vomiting and overall CR, but not useful in controlling nausea or attaining CC, the ideal CINV endpoint. A shift in paradigm is needed for future CINV research. As healthcare providers continue to strive for optimum CINV control in their patients, we hope this review can help them make better informed clinical decisions.

135 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still one of the major problems in cancer treatment. However detailed profile of CINV in patients with esophageal cancer is not known. Prospective multi-center observational study was conducted to assess the current status of CINV in Japan. Methods: Between May 2011 and December 2012, 193 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent systemic chemotherapy with high (HEC) or moderate emetogenic agents (MEC) were registered. Antiemetic drugs (5-HT3 receptor antagonists, dexamethasone and NK1receptor antagonist) were used to suppress CINV. Occurrence and severity of CINV were assessed with a diary provided to the patients prior to chemotherapy. Acute phase (within 24 hours from the start of chemotherapy) and late phase CINV (24 hours or later) were assessed separately. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify the predictive factors for acute and late phase CINV. Results: Of 193 patients 165 were male and 28 were female. Median age was 66 (range 40-84). HEC and MEC were administered in 180 and 13 patients, respectively. Acute phase nausea and vomiting were observed in 9 (4.7%) and 7 (3.6%) of 193 patients, respectively. Late-phase nausea and vomiting were observed in 75 (38.9%) and 18 (9.3%) of 193 patients, respectively. Risk factors for acute phase nausea, acute phase vomiting, late phase nausea and late-phase vomiting were assessed separately. By multivariate analysis for late-phase vomiting, younger age (Odds ratio 0.523 [every 10 years]; 95%CI 0.278-0.986; p=0.045) and male gender (Odds ratio 5.796; 95%CI 1.806-18.603; p=0.003) were independent predictive factors. By multivariate analyses for acute phase nausea, acute phase vomiting and late-phase nausea, no independent predictive factor was identified. Conclusions: Acute phase CINV was effectively suppressed by antiemetic drugs, while late phase CINV was not sufficiently suppressed. Further intervention to suppress late phase CINV should be considered, especially in high-risk patients. Clinical trial information: UMIN000005971.

12091 Background: The historical standard clinical trial endpoint for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been assessment of complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication use) over five days. Recent evaluations focused on the duration of breakthrough CINV suggest that long duration of CINV results in more lost work time and impaired activity and is also a strong predictor for CINV in subsequent cycles. A recent pooled analysis of three similarly designed registration trials of NEPA, a fixed oral combination NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) (netupitant)/5-HT3RA (palonosetron), showed significantly higher CR rates during the delayed phase (≥24-120h) for NEPA compared to an aprepitant (APR) regimen. In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the extent and duration of breakthrough CINV in these pooled studies. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy and antiemetic prophylaxis of either a single dose of NEPA plus dexamethasone (DEX) or a 3-day APR/5-HT3 RA/DEX regimen from three randomized, double-blind pivotal trials were included. Patients without a CR were defined as treatment failures. Extent of CINV was evaluated using proportions of patients with treatment failure, emesis, and significant nausea (defined as >25 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale). Over the 5-day overall phase, duration was categorized as 1-2, and ≥3 days. Pearson’s chi-square test was employed to compare risks between treatments for each duration category in each of the previously mentioned endpoints. Results: Among all 621 NEPA and 576 APR patients, a significantly greater proportion of APR patients experienced treatment failure, emesis, and significant nausea for ≥3 days. Specifically, among patients with treatment failure, 31% (41/134) who received NEPA and 43% (61/143) who received APR experienced breakthrough CINV for ≥3 days. Conclusions: Expanding on data suggesting single-day NEPA is more effective than 3-day APR in preventing delayed CINV, NEPA is also more effective in minimizing the extent and duration of CINV in patients with breakthrough emesis and nausea.[Table: see text]

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most distressing side effects associated with deterioration in the quality of life. This study aimed to assess the clinical value of Huoxiang Zhengqi (HXZQ) oral liquid, a Chinese patent medicine, in combination with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and dexamethasone, in preventing CINV in patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Methods: In this multicenter, exploratory randomized clinical trial, the authors compared the efficacy of HXZQ oral liquid against a control group receiving a placebo, in combination with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving a multiday cisplatin-based regimen between January 2021 and September 2021. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate. The secondary endpoints included days with no CINV, the incidence of CINV, and life function. Results: Sixty patients were randomized into two groups and included in the study. The CR rate was significantly improved by HXZQ oral liquid in acute CINV (63.33% vs. 33.33%, p = 0.020) and CINV beyond the risk phase (96.67% vs. 46.67%, p = 0.000). The number of days with no CINV was significantly more in the HXZQ group compared with the control group in the overall phase (18.10 ± 3.64 vs. 12.13 ± 7.63, p = 0.002). Significantly higher Functional Living Index-Emesis total and domain scores were observed in the HXZQ group. Conclusions: HXZQ oral liquid combined with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone is a feasible and safe approach to prevent CINV in patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy who cannot use neurokinin 1 RAs. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2000040123.

The optimal dose of oral ondansetron for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) resulting from moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is unknown. This retrospective audit was conducted to determine the efficacy of 8 mg oral ondansetron plus 8 mg oral dexamethasone as pre-chemotherapy anti-emetic regimen for patients receiving MEC. The efficacy outcomes analysed were the proportion of patients with no acute vomiting, proportion of patients with no acute nausea and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 CINV. A total of 81 patients were identified. The most frequent chemotherapy regimens received in the study population were anthracycline- (48%) and carboplatin-based (28%). No acute vomiting and nausea rates in the study population were 75% and 44% respectively. The incidence of grade 3 CINV was 1%. Patients who received anthracycline-based regimens had a significantly higher incidence of acute emesis (P= 0.001) and nausea (P < 0.0001) when compared with patients who received non-anthracycline-based regimens. In this study, the use of 8 mg oral ondansetron plus 8 mg oral dexamethasone achieved control of acute emesis in 75% of all patients receiving MEC which is comparable to previously reported rates of 70-80%. The benefits of using oral pre-chemotherapy anti-emetics include reduction in the costs of drugs and nursing administration time.