Chemotherapy-induced Nausea And Vomiting Prophylaxis Research Articles

Neiguan (PC6) acupoint stimulation for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a cost-effective supplement in guideline-inconsistent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis subgroup.

To assess the efficacy and safety of Neiguan (PC6) acupoint acustimulation in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), especially for patients with guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) due to personal reasons METHODS: From January 2021 to December 2021, 373 patients suffered from solid malignancy were recruited according to the inclusion criteria. Complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication use) rate during the overall phase (0-120 h of each chemo-cycle) was the primary assessment of CINV control. The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire was investigated among these patients as a secondary 'quality of life' objective to assess the impact of CINV on patients' daily life by recording score of nausea and vomiting. With acustimulation of Neiguan (PC6) acupuncture point through a portable, noninvasive and user-friendly device, in terms of complete response rate and scores in nausea/vomiting by FLIE questionnaire, patients achieve a better outcome in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) induced CINV, especially GICP subgroup. Meanwhile, analysis also demonstrated this tendency existed in other patients with HEC/GCCP (guideline consistent CINV prophylaxis) and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy, although the difference was not significant. Considering advantages of Neiguan (PC6) acustimulation such as noninvasive, covered by medical insurance and few side effects, we believe it would be an ideal auxiliary tool in CINV control, especially in patients who receive highly emetogenic chemo-protocol and are reluctant to GCCP for economic reasons.

Evaluation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine—a case series

PurposeAlthough lomustine has been used as a chemotherapeutic agent for decades, no recommendation on appropriate chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is available. As CINV is considered one of the most bothersome side effects of chemotherapy, adequate prophylaxis is of relevance to improve quality of life during cancer treatment. The aim of this retrospective case series was to report the incidence and severity of CINV in pediatric patients with high-grade glioma treated with lomustine and to formulate recommendations for appropriate CINV prophylaxis.MethodsPediatric patients treated with lomustine for high-grade glioma according to the ACNS 0423 protocol were identified retrospectively. Two researchers independently reviewed and classified complaints of CINV and administered CINV prophylaxis. Treatment details, tumor localization, and response to therapy were systematically extracted from the patients’ files.ResultsSeventeen children aged 8–18 years received a median of four cycles of lomustine. CINV complaints and administered prophylaxis were evaluable in all patients. Moderate or severe CINV was observed in 13/17 (76%) patients. Administered prophylactic CINV regimens varied from no prophylaxis to triple-agent combinations.ConclusionIn this case series, we identified lomustine as a highly emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent. According to the current guidelines, CINV prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in combination with dexamethasone and (fos)aprepitant is recommended.

Retrospective Evaluation of a Dexamethasone Sparing Antiemetic Regimen: An Antiemetic Prophylaxis Study on NEPA (Netupitant Plus Palonosetron) for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) in Cancer Patients.

Background Corticosteroids, specifically dexamethasone (DEX), have been extensively utilized for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, their usage is associated with a range of adverse events. In contrast, the combination of NetupitantPlus Palonosetron (NEPA) with a single dose of DEX provides comparable efficacy in preventing CINV over a five-day period following chemotherapy administration. This regimen offers the advantage of reducing the need for additional doses of DEX, particularly in the high-risk setting of HEC (Highly emetic chemotherapy). Objective To evaluate dexamethasone sparing anti-emetic regimen (single dose dexamethasone with NEPA) for prophylaxis of CINV in patients receiving HEC. Methodology This is a retrospective, observational, real-world, single-center study including data of 69 patients who received high-dose emetogenic chemotherapy and were administered DEX (8 or 12 mg) on day 1, with no dose ofDEX on days 2, 3, and 4, combined with an oral combination of tablet netupitant 300 mg and palonosetron 0.5 mg. NEPA was taken orally an hour prior to the start of the HEC cycle. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR) which is defined as no nausea, emesis, or no rescue medication during the Acute (< 24 hours) and Delayed Phase (25-120 hours) of chemotherapy. Results The overall CR achieved in the acute and delayed phase for vomiting is 100% at all four follow-ups. The CR achieved in the acute phase is 95.7% whereas 98.6% of patients showed CR in the delayed phase respectively. No patient required any rescue medication. No acute and delayed phase of vomiting was reported. Conclusion A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX offers effective CINV prevention throughout five days post-chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high-emetic-risk setting chemotherapy.

Prevention of CINV in Patients with Multiple Myeloma or Lymphoma Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: NEPA Versus Ondansetron. a Monocentric Real-Life Experience

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are adverse events that compromise quality of life and treatment compliance in patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Polychemotherapy regimens, used as conditioning regimens for ASCT in lymphomas, and high-dose melphalan (≥140 mg/mq), used in multiple myeloma (MM), have high emetogenic risk. Control of CINV is difficult and there is no uniformity for its prophylaxis. Antiemetic guidelines recommend, for prophylaxis, co-administration of a triplet regimen of a serotonine (5-HT3) receptor antagonist (RA), as Ondansetron, a neurokinin-1 RA, and dexamethasone. Netupitant-Palonosetron (NEPA), an oral formulation derived from the combination of Netupitant (NK1-RA) and Palonsetron, has been approved as prophylaxis of CINV but its experience in the stem cell transplant setting is still limited. AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of Ondansetron versus NEPA in terms of reduction of CINV in patients affected by lymphoma or MM who undergone ASCT. The secondary aims included comparing the duration of CINV, based on the use of Ondansetron or NEPA, and their safety profile in terms of reduction of extrahaematological toxicity (as mucositis or diarrhea). METHODS: In this retrospective monocentric study, we enrolled 76 patients (48 with MM and 28 with lymphoma), who underwent ASCT between March 2021 and March 2022. All patients with MM received high dose of melphalan, those with lymphoma received FEAM. Regarding antiemetics patients were divided according to whether they received NEPA or Ondansetron .Patients' characteristics are in Table 1. RESULTS: Among all, fifty patients (65%) reported CINV of any grade. In particular, the group experiencing CINV included about half of patients treated with NEPA (56%) and almost all those treated with Ondansetron (91%). Among the 26 patients who didn't report CINV (35%), the majority received NEPA (92%) (P = 0.0032)(Fig. 1a). Focusing on patients with MM, 33 experienced CINV (68%), and they were 59% of MM patients treated with NEPA and 93% of those treated with Ondansetron. Fifteen patients did not experience CINV (32%) and almost all of them (93%) had been treated with NEPA (P = 0.037)(Fig. 1b). Sixty-one percent of the 28 patients with lymphoma reported CINV (P= 0.1914) (Fig. 1c). Mean duration of CINV was significantly shorter for patients treated with NEPA than for those treated with Ondansetron (4.8 days vs 9.2 days) (P= 0.002) (Fig. 1d). Regarding extraematological toxicity of chemotherapy, as mucositis and diarrhea, we didn't find any significant difference between the two groups of patients. Regarding the outcome to NEPA, complete response rate (no emesis, no rescue medication) was 37% during overall phases of CINV, 28% of patients had complete control (complete response with no more than mild nausea) and 31% had uncontrolled nausea. Conversely, in the Ondansetron group, only 5% of patients had complete response and 95% had uncontrolled nausea (Fig. 1e). All patients with uncontrolled nausea required a rescue therapy. According to CTCAE, 69% of patients receiving NEPA had grade 1 nausea and 6% had none, while all patients receiving Ondansetron had CINV and 85% of them had grade 2 nausea. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, NEPA has shown superiority in the prevention of CINV, in highly emetogenic regimens in both patients with myeloma or lymphoma, with advantages on the severity and the duration of CINV. Given the high burden of CINV in the whole population analyzed in the study, regardless of the antiemetic used, it would be useful to identify patients at greatest risk and standardize CINV prophylaxis and treatment protocols depending on the different chemotherapy regimens and their emetogenic risk.

Evaluation of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine as antiemetic prophylaxis for fludarabine and melphalan-based conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants

BackgroundLimited data are available regarding efficacious antiemetic regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In patients aged 60 years or older, allogeneic HSCT is associated with improved survival, but tolerability of the transplant is a significant barrier. Fludarabine and melphalan (Flu–Mel) is a frequently utilized multi-day reduced intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic HSCT. However, the optimal CINV prevention regimen is unknown. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel CINV prophylaxis regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT with Flu–Mel compared to a historical control group. Study designThis was a retrospective, single-center, cohort review of 123 patients who received a Flu–Mel preparative regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022. Fifty-nine patients received high dose ondansetron (HDO) for CINV prevention, while sixty-four patients received a combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine (PFO). The primary outcome was average number of rescue antiemetic doses administered per day. A key secondary outcome was time to first rescue antiemetic. ResultsThe median number of antiemetic doses used per day was significantly lower in patients who received PFO compared to HDO (1.94 doses [0.31–3.60] vs 3.31 doses [1.61–4.92]; p = 0.002). In addition, use of PFO significantly prolonged the median time to first rescue antiemetic compared to HDO (41.3 h [24.3–122.7] vs 26.2 h [14.7–48.1]; p = 0.016). ConclusionThe combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine is an effective antiemetic regimen for patients receiving a Flu–Mel-based preparative regimen.

Pharmacotherapy Considerations in Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Objectives. Although several guidelines are available aiming for optimal chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control, there still remain critical therapeutic challenges: (i) recommendations are mainly drug-based, not protocol-based; (ii) the risk of antiemetics-related interactions is not highlighted; (iii) the emetogenicity of a regimen may vary over the cycle; and (iv) the impact of the underlying malignancy is overlooked. Apparently, the existing approach seems not to be generally efficient and puts patients at risk of insufficient use of antiemetics as well as poor emesis control. Evidence Acquisition. This study has re-evaluated the emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens based on administered medications on each day, drug-drug interactions, combination therapy, and delayed CINV. Results. A literature review was done to re-evaluate the emetogenicity of the commonly accepted chemotherapy regimens based on administered medications on each day, drug interactions, combination therapy, and delayed CINV. Conclusion. The revised CINV prophylaxis protocols with sorted recommendations for hematologic malignancies and solid tumors have been represented, with respect to the availability of prophylactic medications.

Dexamethasone free antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy: A phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

133 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common side effect of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Current guidelines recommend the use of dexamethasone (DEX) for prophylaxis, but the effectiveness and safety of a DEX-free regimen for CINV prophylaxis in HEC is not known. Methods: This was an investigator-initiated, double-blind, phase 3 RCT designed to show the non-inferiority of a DEX-free regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant; OPF) compared to the NCCN recommended DEX-containing regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and dexamethasone; OPD). Chemotherapy-naive patients aged 18-80 years receiving single-day HEC were randomized 1:1 to receive either the OPD regimen (olanzapine 5 mg once a day on days 1-4, palonosetron 0.25 mg on day 1, and DEX 12 mg on day 1) or the OPF regimen (olanzapine and palonosetron as above, and fosaprepitant 150 mg on day 1).The primary endpoint was to compare complete response (CR) rates for vomiting (no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (start of chemotherapy to 120 h). The secondary endpoints were CR for nausea (ESAS), toxicities (CTCAE), and patient reported outcome measures (PROM) using MDASI. 175 patients in each arm were required show non-inferiority (NI) of OPF regimen compared to OPD regiment with power of 90%, 2-sided alpha of 5%, and NI margin of 15%. Results: Between May 2022-Dec 2022, 350 patients were randomized and 346 received the study interventions (OPD arm n = 174 and OPF arm n = 172). The most common chemotherapy used was adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (66%) followed by cisplatin (27%). CR rates for vomiting for the overall phase were 48.8% in the OPD arm and 79.6% in the OPF arm (P &lt; 0.001), with an absolute difference of -30.8% and 2-sided 95% CI = (-40.31, -21.24) which was within the pre-defined NI margin of 15% and also showed superiority. The DEX-free arm also had significantly higher CR rates for nausea and total control (vomiting and nausea combined) (Table). PROM for fatigue (P = 0.009) and drowsiness (P = 0.002) were more in the OPF arm in the acute phase, and insomnia (P &lt; 0.001) in the OPD arm in the delayed phase. Global Health Status QOL score on day 6 in the OPD arm was 55.36 ± 16.15 and in the OPF arm was 57.84 ± 12.76, P = 0.11. Conclusions: This study shows that a DEX-free OPF regimen is superior to the DEX-based OPD regimen and should be considered a standard option for CINV prophylaxis for HEC. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2022/03/040906 . [Table: see text]

The role of NEPA, a combination of netupitant and palonosetron, in the prevention of nausea and vomiting: case report and literature review

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common complications of the systemic anticancer treatment. The manifestations of this complication are largely determined by subjective perceptions and individual characteristics of patients, but this complication may have unprecedented negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. There were significant advances in CINV prophylaxis in the recent decades, with many effective antiemetic drugs entering routine clinical practice. Current clinical guidelines for antiemetic therapy provide various possible strategies for CINV prevention, but do not give any specific guidance on the selection of individual agents within each class of emetogenic potential. NEPA, which is a fixed-dose combination of NK1-antagonist netupitant and 5-HT3 antagonist palonosteron, is the most recent antiemetic drug in clinical practice. This article reviews current data on the effectiveness of this drug and aims to define its “niche” in antiemetic therapy. The results of historical and most relevant studies demonstrating the effectiveness of NEPA in CINV prevention, pharmacological features of the drug and its potential advantages are discussed. The role of the drug in the existing therapeutic arsenal was evaluated using the example of a clinical report of treatment of a patient with an aggravated history (type 2 diabetes mellitus with poorly controlled hyperglycaemia) The patient achieved a complete response to the antiemetic therapy: no episodes of vomiting during treatment, the severity of nausea did not exceed the 1st grade, no additional prescription of antiemetic drugs was required.

PRESCRIPTION PATTERN OF PROPHYLACTIC ANTIEMETICS IN BREAST CANCER PATIENTS: A RETROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY IN A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL

Objective: The aim of the study was to study the prescription pattern of prophylactic antiemetics in breast cancer patients. Methods: A retrospective observational study was carried out. Over a period of 3 months, all chemotherapy order sheets of breast cancer patients were collected and evaluated for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We compared each antiemetic drug used for CINV prophylaxis with international antiemetic guidelines, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Results: A total of 103 breast cancer patients were included in the study, for which 141 chemotherapy physician prescriptions included antiemetic drugs. Approximately 51.06% of anticancer agents had high emetic risk, 2.13% had moderate emetic risk, and 43.26% and 3.55% of anticancer agents had low and minimal emetic risk, respectively. Most frequently prescribed anticancer drug was paclitaxel 49 (34.75%). About 43.97% of the antiemetic regimen were found following NCCN guidelines. Conclusion: The development of institutional policy for assessment and guidance of the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis may improve the consistency between antiemetic prescribing and guidelines.

A phase III, double-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial of antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy without dexamethasone: CINV POD study.

12127 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common side effect of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Current guidelines recommend the use of dexamethasone (DEX) for prophylaxis, but the effectiveness and safety of a DEX-free regimen for CINV prophylaxis in HEC is not known. Methods: This was an investigator-initiated, double-blind, phase 3 RCT designed to show the non-inferiority of a DEX-free regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant; OPF) compared to the NCCN recommended DEX-containing regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and dexamethasone; OPD). Chemotherapy-naive patients aged 18-80 years receiving single-day HEC were randomized 1:1 to receive either the OPD regimen (olanzapine 5 mg once a day on days 1-4, palonosetron 0.25 mg on day 1, and DEX 12 mg on day 1) or the OPF regimen (olanzapine and palonosetron as above, and fosaprepitant 150 mg on day 1). The primary endpoint was to compare complete response (CR) rates for vomiting (no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (start of chemotherapy to 120 h). The secondary endpoints were CR for nausea (ESAS), toxicities (CTCAE), and patient reported outcome measures (PROM) using MDASI. Assuming CR for vomiting for the overall phase of 77% (power = 90%, 2-sided alpha = 5%, and non-inferiority margin [NI] = 15%), 175 patients in each arm were required (including 5% dropout). Results: Between May 2022-Dec 2022, 350 patients were randomized and 346 received the study interventions (OPD arm n = 174 and OPF arm n = 172). The most common chemotherapy used was adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (66%) followed by cisplatin (27%). CR rates for vomiting for the overall phase were 48.8% in the OPD arm and 79.6% in the OPF arm (P &lt; 0.001), with an absolute difference of -30.8% and 2-sided 95% CI = (-40.31, -21.24) which was within the pre-defined NI margin of 15% and also showed superiority. The DEX-free arm also had significantly higher CR rates for nausea and total control (vomiting and nausea combined) (Table). There were no significant differences in any grade CTCAE toxicities. PROM for fatigue (P = 0.009) and drowsiness (P = 0.002) were more in the OPF arm in the acute phase, and insomnia (P &lt; 0.001) in the OPD arm in the delayed phase. Conclusions: This study shows that a DEX-free OPF regimen is superior to the DEX-based OPD regimen and should be considered a standard option for CINV prophylaxis for HEC. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2022/03/040906 . [Table: see text]

Evaluation of Current Antiemetic Therapy Response in Patients Undergoing MEC or HEC Regimens in Portugal.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) negatively impact cancer patients' quality of life and treatment outcomes. This study evaluated the achievement of complete response to CINV prophylaxis during the first five days after chemotherapy in adult outpatient cancer clinics with solid malignant tumours receiving Moderate or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy (MEC or HEC) in Portugal. During the study, patients completed three evaluations, and nausea severity and CINV impact on patients' daily life was assessed. A complete response (no emetic episodes, no use of rescue antiemetic medication, and no more than mild nausea) was observed in 72% of the cycles (N = 161) throughout the five days after chemotherapy. Amongst the patient population, 25% classified their CINV episodes as severe. Though more than half of the patients achieved a complete response, suggesting that a therapeutic effort is being made to minimise this side effect, the overall scenario is barely optimistic. Significantly, new CINV-control measures in MEC/HEC patients should be adopted, specifically avoiding the single use of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 and raising awareness of using NK1-RAs. Thus, it is critical to improve CINV prophylactic treatment and implement practical international antiemetic guidelines in Portuguese clinical practice, envisaging the improvement of supportive care for cancer patients.

Efficacy and safety of low doses of olanzapine for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in children and adolescents receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The interim results of a randomized trial

International studies and the analysis of our own data demonstrate that the standard three-drug (5-HT3 receptor antagonist, aprepitant and dexamethasone) regimen used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) gives the possibility to achieve complete CINV control in less than 50% of children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. According to the results of randomized trials in adult patients, the addition of low doses of olanzapine increases the efficacy of CINV prophylaxis. There is no data on the efficacy and safety of low-dose olanzapine used for the prevention of CINV in children. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of adding low doses (0.07 mg/kg, maximum 5 mg) of olanzapine to the standard regimen used for CINV prophylaxis after highly emetogenic chemotherapy in children. The study includes patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy at the Dmitry Rogachev National Medical Research Center of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Immunology of Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, in case of which there are no other (except for chemotherapy) obvious reasons for nausea and vomiting and no contraindications for the use of olanzapine. The study was approved by the Independent Ethics Committee and the Scientific Council of the Dmitry Rogachev National Medical Research Center of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Immunology of Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, and registered in the US National Library of Medicine clinical trials registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov), the identification number is NCT05346731. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio and stratified (previously received highly emetogenic therapy or not; regimens with high doses of cisplatin/carboplatin and without it) to receive the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy with standard three-drug prophylaxis with the addition of low doses of olanzapine or without it. Then, the patients underwent a second similar cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy with a change in the antiemetic prophylaxis option (crossover). For the assessment of CINV, we used the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT). Adverse events were assessed using CTCAE v.5.0. This is an interim analysis and it was carried out in order to assess whether it was reasonable to continue the study. From March to August 2022, 31 patients were included in the study, the median age was 14 (5–18) years, the ratio of boys:girls was 15:16; all patients suffered from extracranial solid tumors. Considering crossover, 31 patients included in the study received 62 cycles of chemotherapy (31 cycles with olanzapine and 31 cycles without it). Out of 31 cycles of chemotherapy with standard three-drug prophylaxis, complete CINV control was achieved in 16 (52%) cases, out of 31 cycles with prophylaxis, which included low doses of olanzapine – in 24 (77%) cases (p = 0.027). Adverse events associated with olanzapine were quite common (sedation - 97%, weight gain -76%), but mild (&lt; Grade III). According to the patient survey results, 30/31 (97%) patients preferred the regimen with olanzapine, and only 1 patient preferred neither of the regimens. The interim analysis of the study results shows that the addition of low doses of olanzapine significantly increases the efficacy of CINV prophylaxis in pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, is well tolerated, safe and preferred by the vast majority of patients. It is necessary to continue the study until the planned number of patients for the final analysis is included.

Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis.

AimThe aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens.Study design and methodsClinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1–2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet).ResultsAmong 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users.ConclusionIn patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.

Efficacy of Olanzapine 5 mg versus 10 mg for the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving High Emetic Risk Chemotherapy without Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of two different dosage levels of olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving high emetic risk chemotherapy. Methods:This study was a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial designed to show non-inferiority in the efficacy of olanzapine 5 mg compared to 10 mg in patients treated with high dose cisplatin or doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. Non-inferiority was defined as a lower margin of the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) that not lower than the margin set at -25%. Result:A total of 140 patients were randomized to 5 mg group (n=70) or 10 mg group (n=70) of olanzapine. The complete response (CR) rate in the overall phase of olanzapine 5 and 10 mg was 58.6% v 62.9% (95%CI: -20.4, 11.8). The CR rate comparison between olanzapine 5 and 10 mg was 81.4% v 74.3% (95%CI: -6-6, 20.8) and 66.7% v 76.1% (95%CI: -23.5, 6.3) for the acute and delayed phase, respectively. No nausea rates in acute, delayed and overall phase were 70.0% v 68.6% (95%CI: -13.8, 16.6), 45.7% v 48.6% (95%CI: -19.4, 13.6) and 43.5% v 47.9% (95%CI: -19.2, 13.6). The rate of adverse events (AE) including somnolence were not different between the 5 and 10 mg groups. Conclusion:The two dosage levels of olanzapine were not different in terms of the efficacy and AE in the prophylaxis of CINV.

Assessing the impact of antiemetic guideline compliance on prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Results of the nausea/emesis registry in oncology (NERO)

BackgroundEvidence-based antiemetic guidelines offer predominantly consistent recommendations for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis. However, studies suggest that adherence to these recommendations is suboptimal. We explored inconsistencies between clinical practice and guideline-recommended treatment with a registry evaluating the effect of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP) on patient outcomes. Patients and methodsThis was a prospective, non-interventional, multicentre study. The primary objective was to assess the overall (Days 1–5) complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue use) rates in patients who received GCCP or guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) using diaries for 5 days following chemotherapy. Cycle 1 results are presented in patients who received either (1) anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), non-AC HEC or carboplatin, with GCCP for all these groups consisting of prophylaxis with an NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy or (2) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), with GCCP consisting of a 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy as per MASCC/ESMO 2016 guidelines, in place at the time of the study. Results1,089 patients were part of the cycle 1 efficacy evaluation. Overall GCCP was 23%. CR rates were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in patients receiving GCCP (62.2%) versus GICP (52.6%) in the overall population, as well as in the subsets of patients receiving AC/non-AC HEC (60.2% versus 47.8%), MEC (73.8% versus 57.8%) and in those non-naïve to the chemotherapy received (65.9% versus 53.8%). No impact on daily living due to CINV (FLIE assessment) was observed in 43.4% patients receiving GCCP versus 28.5% GICP (P < 0.001). ConclusionConsistent with prior studies, GCCP was very low; a significant benefit of almost 10% improved prevention of CINV was observed with GCCP. As per MASCC/ESMO guidelines, such an absolute difference should be practice changing. Comprehensive multifaceted strategies are needed to achieve better adherence to antiemetic guidelines.

Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Children: A Literature Review and Recommendation for Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Resource Limited Countries

Chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are the most common side effects that impacts quality of life in children receiving cancer treatment. Inadequately controlled CINV impairs functional activity increases the healthcare utilization and compromises treatment adherence. The availability of new antiemetic agents results in substantially improvement of emetic control; however, in real-world practice, many developing countries have limited access to newly-developed antiemetic agents. This is a major obstacle in achieving adequate CINV control. Recent studies have recommended the “triple therapy” regimen (a 5-HT3 antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin-1 antagonist), as the backbone for antiemetic prophylaxis. Olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic drug that improves CINV control in adult cancer patients. Together with ‘triple therapy” olanzapine is now recommended as the first line CINV prophylaxis in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Herein, we reviewed the recent published guidelines for the prevention and treatment of CINV in children. Furthermore, due to limited drug accessibility to neurokinin-1 antagonists, we proposed an institutional CINV guideline to replace the neurokinin-1 antagonist with olanzapine, which might be more reasonable in terms of economic constraints in resource limited countries.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

Background sensitivity to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and response to antiemetics in paediatric patients: a genetic association study.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a common adverse effect for children with cancer. In children, chemotherapy emetogenicity and patient factors such as susceptibility to motion sickness and age group determine a patient's risk of CINV. Besides known risk factors, genetic factors may play a role in interindividual variation in the occurrence of CINV. We investigated the influence of candidate gene polymorphisms on the efficacy of antiemetics and on the background sensitivity to CINV in children. This prospective study included 100 children with cancer (median age 6.4 years, range 0.8-17.9) who received moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Participants registered nausea and vomiting episodes in a mobile app. Genotypes were determined by whole-genome sequencing (n = 79) or Sanger sequencing (n = 21) for 71 genetic polymorphisms involved in motion sickness and antiemetic pathways. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate associations between acute CINV and genotypes adjusting for susceptibility to motion sickness and age group. Rs3782025 in the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor gene (HTR3B) [minor allele frequency (MAF): 0.48] affected response to 5-HT3 receptor antagonists; acute CINV occurred in 76% of patients with GA/AA genotypes and in 41% of patients with GG genotype (OR 5.59; 95% CI 1.74-17.9, dominant genetic model). Rs2975226 in the dopamine transporter gene (SLC6A3) (MAF: 0.54) was associated with acute CINV (OR 5.79; 95% CI 1.09-30.67, recessive genetic model). Polymorphisms in HTR3B and SLC6A3 may contribute to the variability in response to antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV in children.

Improving Guideline-Congruent Care for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis in Pediatric Oncology Patients.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a very common side effect of pediatric cancer therapy. High-quality, evidence-based, pediatric-specific guidelines for prophylaxis and treatment of CINV are available. At many centers, guideline-concordant care is uncommon. We formed a multidisciplinary quality improvement team to implement guideline-concordant care for CINV prophylaxis at our center. We present the results following the first year of our interventions. We planned and implemented a multipronged approach in three key phases: (1) developing and publishing an acute CINV prophylaxis pathway, (2) education of providers, and (3) updating the computerized provider order entry system. We used iterative, sequential Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and behavioral economic strategies to improve adherence to guideline-concordant CINV prophylaxis. We focused on aprepitant usage as a key area for improvement. At the beginning of the study period, < 50% of patients were receiving guideline-concordant CINV prophylaxis and < 15% of eligible patients were receiving aprepitant. After 1 year, more than 60% of patients were receiving guideline-concordant care and 50% of eligible patients were receiving aprepitant. We describe the development and implementation of a standardized pathway for prevention of acute CINV in pediatric oncology patients. With a multidisciplinary, multifaceted approach, we demonstrate significant improvements to guideline-congruent CINV prophylaxis.

Netupitant/palonosetron without dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting in patients with multiple myeloma receiving high-dose melphalan for autologous stem cell transplantation: a single-center experience.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent adverse events compromising quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, CINV prophylaxis is still lacking uniformity for high-dose melphalan (HDM), which is used to condition patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is administered with dexamethasone (DEXA) for CINV prevention in several chemotherapy regimens. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of NEPA, without DEXA, in preventing CINV in 106 adult patients with MM receiving HDM and ASCT. All patients had antiemetic prophylaxis with multiple doses of NEPA 1 h before the start of conditioning and after 72 h and 120 h. A complete response (CR) was observed in 99 (93%) patients at 120 h (overall phase). The percentage of patients with complete control was 93%. The CR rate during the acute phase was 94% (n = 100). During the delayed phase, the CR rate was 95% (n = 101). Grade 1 nausea and vomiting were experienced by 82% and 12% of the patients, respectively. Grade 2 nausea was reported in 18% and vomiting in 10% of patients. Our results showed, for the first time, that NEPA, without DEXA, was a well-tolerated and effective antiemetic option for MM patients receiving HDM followed by ASCT.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06472-7.