Emetogenic Chemotherapy-induced Nausea Research Articles

Low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine with triple antiemetic therapy for prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with solid tumours: a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

Olanzapine is an effective antiemetic agent but it results in substantial daytime somnolence when administered at the standard dose. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine after highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with solid tumours. This was a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in a tertiary care referral centre in India (Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai). Patients aged 13-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who were receiving doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide or high-dose cisplatin for a solid tumour were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with block randomisation (block sizes of 2 or 4) and stratified by sex, age (≥55 or <55 years), and chemotherapy regimen, to receive low-dose (2·5 mg) oral olanzapine or standard-dose (10·0 mg) oral olanzapine daily for 4 days, in combination with a triple antiemetic regimen. Study staff were masked to treatment allocation but patients were aware of their group assignment. The primary endpoint was complete control, defined as no emetic episodes, no rescue medications, and no or mild nausea in the overall phase (0-120 hours), assessed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (ie, all eligible patients who received protocol-specified treatment, excluding those who had eligibility violations and who withdrew consent after randomisation). Daytime somnolence was the safety endpoint of interest. Non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in the complete control proportions between the treatment groups excluded the non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry India, CTRI/2021/01/030233, is closed to accrual, and this is the final data analysis. Between Feb 9, 2021, and May 30, 2023, 356 patients were pre-screened for eligibility, of whom 275 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (134 to the 2·5 mg olanzapine group and 141 to the 10·0 mg olanzapine group). 267 patients (132 in the 2·5 mg group and 135 in the 10·0 mg group) were included in the mITT population, of whom 252 (94%) were female, 15 (6%) were male, and 242 (91%) had breast cancer. 59 (45%) of 132 patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group had complete control in the overall phase versus 59 (44%) of 135 in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group (difference -1·0% [one-sided 95% CI -100·0 to 9·0]; p=0·87). In the overall phase, there were significantly fewer patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group than in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group with daytime somnolence of any grade (86 [65%] of 132 vs 121 [90%] of 135; p<0·0001) and of severe grade on day 1 (six]5%] vs 54 [40%]; p<0·0001). Our findings suggest that olanzapine 2·5 mg is non-inferior to 10·0 mg in antiemetic efficacy and results in reduced occurrence of daytime somnolence among patients receiving highly emetic chemotherapy and should be considered as a new standard of care. Progressive Ladies Welfare Association.

453P Palonosetron plus megestrol acetate verses palonosetron plus dexamethasone in preventing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A randomized, multicenter, crossover, phase II trial

453P Palonosetron plus megestrol acetate verses palonosetron plus dexamethasone in preventing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A randomized, multicenter, crossover, phase II trial

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of olanzapine plus triple antiemetic regimen for the prevention of multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (OFFER study).

Evidence supports prophylactic use of olanzapine for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, most studies to date have focused on patients with single-day highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Currently, administration of antiemetic therapies for nausea and vomiting induced by multiday chemotherapy regimens remains a challenge. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of olanzapine combined with triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving multiday chemotherapy. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in 22 hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years old, were diagnosed with malignant solid tumors, and they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2. All the study participants were scheduled to be treated with chemotherapy regimens containing 3-day cisplatin (3-day total dose ≥75mg/m2). Randomization was computer generated and stratified by gender and chemotherapy treatment history. Allocation was done via an interactive web response system. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 5mg olanzapine or placebo orally before bedtime for 5 days combined with intravenous fosaprepitant (150mg) 1h before the administration of cisplatin on day 1, ondansetron hydrochloride intravenously, and dexamethasone orally 30min before cisplatin from days 1 to 3. Dexamethasone was also administered at the same time on days 4 and 5. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) within the overall phase (days 1-8) after starting chemotherapy. Baseline plasma concentrations of P-substance and 5-HT were measured for exploratory analysis. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04536558. Between December 2020 and September 2021, 349 patients with malignant solid tumors were enrolled in the study, with 175 participants randomly assigned to receive olanzapine and 174 participants assigned to receive placebo. The proportion of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall phase was significantly higher in the olanzapine group than in the placebo group (69% vs. 58%, P=0.031). A complete response benefit was observed in the olanzapine group versus the placebo group in almost all the subgroups. Four factors were considered significantly associated with complete response in multivariable analysis: treatment group, gender, baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT, and prior radiotherapy. All the reported adverse events associated with olanzapine administration were grades 1 and2. Olanzapine (5mg) combined with fosaprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone was better than triple antiemetic therapy alone for patients receiving multiday chemotherapy regimens. Based on these results, the four-drug combination should be recommended as the best antiemetic regimen given to patients receiving multiday cisplatin-based chemotherapy and baseline plasma concentration of 5-HT may be used to identify individuals who are prone to CINV. However, all these findings need to be further validated in future studies. Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. provided research grant and study drugs for this investigator-initiated study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings.MethodsA Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained.ResultsNEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125.ConclusionBy most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.

1576P Efficacy of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A network meta-analysis

Several regimens have been introduced in clinical practice in the last years to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Direct comparative data remain insufficient. Here, we indirectly compared the efficacy and safety of all combinations used for HEC-induced nausea and vomiting. We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library until October 01, 2021. We included II-III RCTs, including adults with any cancer receiving HEC, and compared different antiemetic regimes to prevent CINV. The primary outcome was overall complete response (defined as the absence of CINV from 0 to 120 hrs since chemotherapy); secondary outcomes were acute (absence of CINV 0-48 hrs after chemotherapy) and delayed (48-120hrs) response and adverse events (AEs). A total of 41 RCTs enrolling 15575 patients were included. We classified the different antiemetic regimes into 18 different groups. Overall, 4-drug regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone, second-generation 5HT3 antagonists, NK antagonists, and olanzapine proved to be the most effective regimen in terms of complete response (p-score 0.95, 0.88 respectively, for the 5 mg and 10 mg olanzapine dosage). On the contrary, regimens containing a combination of dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonist confirm the poor efficacy in preventing episodes of nausea. In our network meta-analysis, 4-drug regimens displayed the highest probability of efficacy in terms of complete response.

Cost-effectiveness of palonosetron and dexamethasone-based triple and quadruple regimens in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Objective Cost-effectiveness analyses that consider all currently used antiemetics in the case of emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have not been performed yet. We aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine (OLA), or/and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1-RAs), in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) in preventing highly emetogenic CINV. Methods Two decision analytic models were constructed. The first model was based on overall complete response (CR); the second model was based on rate of absence of nausea. Four antiemetic regimens PAL + DEX, NK-1-RAs + PAL + DEX, OLA + PAL + DEX, and PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA were compared in terms of cost, overall CR and rate of absence of nausea. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates were calculated. The study was from the US payer perspective. Results In terms of CR, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest gains in the percentage of CR among all treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $4220 versus PAL + DEX, $4656 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $16,471 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. In term of rate of absence of nausea, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest rate of absence of nausea among all the treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $2291 versus PAL + DEX, $1304 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $2657 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. Conclusion from an economic perspective, our study revealed that whether to use overall CR or/and rate of absence of nausea as determinants in the antiemetic decision for the CINV patients, the CR-based-, and rate of absence of nausea-based cost-effectiveness analyses, showed negotiable ICER estimates for the treatment PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA over the combinations PAL + DEX, NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, and OLA + PAL + DEX regimens.

Elevated serum substance P level as a predictive marker for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A prospective cohort study.

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is an unbearable side effect. Identifying high emetic risk patients and providing more active antiemetics strategies are mandatory to improve the tolerability of chemotherapy. In this prospective cohort study, leptin, ghrelin, and substance P were measured at baseline, day 3, and day 14 during the first cycle of chemotherapy. Nausea and vomiting were measured each day for the first 4 days of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Eighty‐two patients were enrolled. Colorectal cancer (61%) and gastric cancer (35.4%) were common cancer types. All patients received moderate emetic risk chemotherapy. Forty‐five (54.9%) patients had nausea, and 15 (18.3%) patients experienced vomiting. In univariate analysis, a higher level of baseline substance P, which is a target of NK1‐RA (Neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist), was a significant predictive marker for chemotherapy‐induced nausea [odds ratio (OR): 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02–6.62, p = 0.046]. Regarding chemotherapy‐induced vomiting, patients with higher levels of substance P had a greater chance of vomiting [OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 0.49–5.99, p = 0.395] than those with lower levels of substance P. In patients receiving moderate emetic risk chemotherapy, active antiemetics, including NK1‐RA, could be considered for those with high levels of substance P.

Safety and efficacy of aprepitant as mono and combination therapy for the prevention of emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: post-marketing surveillance in China.

The goal of this study was to evaluate aprepitant usage in the context of routine clinical practice with dose/regimens at the discretion of prescribers for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) treatments. In this single arm, multicenter prospective study 1,000 patients with solid malignancies were enrolled across 21 centers in China. The primary endpoint was the rate of adverse events (AEs), including drug related AEs and serious AEs (SAEs). Secondary efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving complete response (CR; no vomiting, no nausea, and no use of rescue medication) within 120 h after highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the rates of no nausea and no vomiting, as well as quality of life (QoL). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was carried out to determine factors associated with the overall (0-120 h), acute (0-24 h) and delayed (25-120 h) CR. Of the 1,000 highly emetogenic chemotherapy treated patients enrolled in the study ≥1 AE, ≥1 drug related AE, ≥1 SAE and drug related SAE rates in 998 patients were 45.9%, 2.5%, 4.0% and 0.1%, respectively. Approximately half of the patients (455/990, 46.0%) received aprepitant as part of a 3-drug anti-CINV regimen consistent with prescribing guidelines. The overall CR (0 to 120 h) for anti-emetic drug use was 41.0%, with an acute CR of 66.0% and a delayed CR of 46.5%. The rates of no vomiting and no nausea after solely aprepitant anti-emetic therapy from 0 to 120 h were 70.9% and 43.0%, for dual anti-emetic therapy 86.9% and 64.6%, and for triple therapy 86.4% and 69.5%, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that triple anti-emetic therapy (P=0.038), male gender (P<0.001) and a history of chemotherapy (P=0.016) were significantly associated with the overall acute CR. Especially as a combination treatment, aprepitant is safe and efficient for preventing CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Efficacy of olanzapine, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and thalidomide in combination with palonosetron plus dexamethasone in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Olanzapine, neurokinin-1-receptor-antagonists (NK-1-RA), and thalidomide added to palonosetron + dexamethasone (PALO-DEX) have been evaluated in separate studies as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the prophylactic efficacy of these agents in combination with PALO-DEX. PubMed, Medline/Ovid, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception through 22 Mar 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane methodology. A Bayesian network meta-analysis using random-effects models was used to asses complete response (CR) and rate of no nausea (RNN) in acute, delayed, and overall phases and were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI). Ranking probabilities of treatments were calculated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to identify the probability of a given treatment as the best option against the worst option. Nine RCTs involving two thousand nine hundred fifty-nine patients were included. The olanzapine-based regimen showed greater CR in the acute, delayed, and overall-phases versus the PALO-DEX regimen (OR = 3.97, 95% CrI = 1.02-19.13; OR = 5.62, 95% CrI = 1.66-28.58; OR = 4.79, 95% CrI = 1.40-24.02, respectively). Additionally, it showed greater RNN than the NK-1-RA-based and the PALO-DEX regimens in the delayed phase only (OR = 2.90, 95% CrI = 1.34-5.15; OR = 4.53, 95% CrI = 1.89-10.55, respectively). Olanzapine-, NK-1-RA-, and thalidomide-based regimens did not differ in CR in the three phases. SUCRA probabilities ranked the olanzapine-based regimen as the best option in terms of CR and RNN, while ranking the NK-1-RA-based regimens as the second best option in terms of CR throughout the three phases. Based on the data included in the analyses, there is insufficient evidence to support adding thalidomide or NK-1-RA to PALO-DEX in preventing CINV induced by HEC. However, adding olanzapine to PALO-DEX achieves better CR and RNN. Olanzapine side-effects and the absence of direct comparisons explain why some guidelines are cautious in suggesting the use of olanzapine.

Prospective randomized trial of standard antiemetic therapy with yoga versus standard antiemetic therapy alone for highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in South Asian population.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most distressing side effects of highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. There have been continuous efforts in the direction to control CINV by many investigators. Randomly selected patients were those receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen grouped into yoga and standard antiemetic therapy (n = 50) just before receiving chemotherapy and continued for the following days and other group (n = 50) received only the standard antiemetic agent. Both the groups were assessed, followed for acute and delayed onset of chemotherapy-induced and anticipatory nausea and vomiting using radiation therapy oncology group grading for the same. We also assessed the quality of life of the patient using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire. The median age group of the patients was 51 years with male:female ratio 2:1, The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was 0/1 in 38% of the selected population, while ECOG 2 in 62% of the patients. In yoga arm, insignificant reduction in chemotherapy-induced nausea (90% vs. 78%, P = 0.35) and but significant reduction in vomiting (42% vs. 22%, P =0.01) was observed as compared to the standard antiemetics only arm. There was a significant reduction in Grade 2 and 3 nausea (84% vs. 38% P < 0.01) and vomiting (14% vs. 0% P < 0.01). Quality of life is also significantly improved in the yoga arm, especially in the ECOG 2 performance status. This study concludes that yoga along with standard antiemetic medication should be a part of the management plan for the cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Effectiveness of Antiemetic Regimens for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

It is important to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to maintain dose intensity and patients' quality of life. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest combination therapy of antiemetic agents. The growing number of antiemetic regimens, and in particular the growing use of regimens containing antagonists to the Nk-1 receptor (NK1RAs) and the antipsychotic drug olanzapine (OLZ), call for the re-evaluation of the optimal regimen for CINV. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Randomized trials that compared different antiemetic regimens were included. We strictly followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The main outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) for overall complete response (absence of vomiting). We conducted network meta-analysis within a Bayesian model to combine the direct and indirect evidence. Safety was assessed from the trial description. All statistical tests were two-sided. We systematically reviewed 27 randomized control trials (13,356 participants), which compared 12 different antiemetic regimens: serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3), 5HT3 + dexamethasone (Dex), palonosetron (PAL), PAL + Dex, PAL at 0.75 mg (PAL0.75), PAL0.75 + Dex, NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex, NK1RA + PAL + Dex, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) + Dex, OLZ + 5HT3 + Dex, OLZ + PAL + Dex, and OLZ + NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex. An NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex regimen and an NK1RA + palonosetron + Dex regimen gave a higher complete response (CR) rate than the reference regimen, 5HT3 + Dex (OR, 1.75; 95% credibility interval [95% CrI], 1.56-1.97, and OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.66-3.03, respectively). A regimen containing NEPA was more effective in producing CR than conventional regimens without NEPA or olanzapine. Further analysis, based on the surface under the cumulative ranking probability curve, indicated that olanzapine-containing regimens were the most effective in producing CR. Our meta-analysis supports the conclusion that olanzapine-containing regimens are the most effective for CINV of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We confirmed that NK1RA + PAL + Dex is the most effective of conventional regimens. Substituting olanzapine for an Nk-1 receptor antagonist may offer a less costly and more effective alternative for patients. Nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy often pose difficulties for patients and doctors, making it hard to continue the proper therapy and to maintain the quality of life. This article gives insights into the optimal choice of medicine to treat nausea during chemotherapy. The findings reported here provide readers with a robust efficacy ranking of antinausea medicine, which can be used as a reference for the best possible treatment. Furthermore, the 70% less costly drug, olanzapine, is suggested to be equally effective to aprepitant in reducing nausea and vomiting. The possibility of offering a cost-effective treatment to a wider range of the population is discussed.

1705P - Ramosetron versus palonosetron in combination with aprepitant and dexamethasone for the control of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background: The combination of palonosetron (PAL), aprepitant (APR) and dexamethasone (DEX) is the standard regimen in controlling highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (HEC CINV) in cancer patients. We previously demonstrated that ramosetron (RAM), 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, is superior to ondansetron. This prospective, multicenter, single blind, randomized and phase IV study compares RAM, APR and DEX (RAD) with PAL, APR and DEX (PAD) to prove the non-inferiority of RAD in controlling HEC CINV. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned at 1:1 ratio to receive either RAD or PAD regimen: RAM(0.3mg IV) or PAL(0.25mg IV), D1 in combination with APR(125mg PO, D1 and 80mg PO, D2-3) and DEX(12 mg PO or IV, D1 and 8 mg PO, D2-4). They were stratified by gender, chemotherapy (cisplatin vs non-cisplatin) and administration schedule (single vs multi-day). The primary endpoint, overall complete response (CR) was defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen within 5 days of HEC. The secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP: CR + nausea score<25mm) and total control (TC: CR + nausea score<5mm). Quality of life (QOL) was assessed by Functional Living Index–Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6. Results: A total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n = 137) or PAD (n = 142) were evaluated for the efficacy and safety. The overall CR rates of RAD vs PAD were 72.3% vs 74.6% (relative difference [RD] -2.4%, 95% CI: -12.8 to 8.0), respectively. The overall CP and TC rates in RAD vs PAD were 52.6% vs 57.0%(RD -4.5%, 95% CI: -16.2 to 7.2) and 45.3% vs 43.0%(RD 2.3%, 95% CI: -9.4 to 14.0%), respectively. FLIE score≥108 (no impact of daily life) was comparable between RAD (n = 134) and PAD (n = 139) (73.9% vs 73.4%, p = 1.00 respectively). Each nausea and vomiting domain (FLIE score≥ 54) was 67.2% vs 64.0 %(p = 0.61) and 91.8% vs 90.6 %(p = 0.83), respectively. The adverse events were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: In all aspects of the efficacy, safety and QOL, our data suggested RAD was comparable to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC. Clinical trial identification: NCT02532634. Legal entity responsible for the study: Jin-Hyoung Kang, Ph.D, The Catholic University of Korea. Funding: Astellas Pharma Korea. Inc. Disclosure: J.S. Ahn: Honoraria: Eiasi, Jassen, Menarini, Roche; Advisory role: Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Abstract P3-14-11: Comparative effectiveness of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Background The optimal choice of antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) needs to be clarified. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods Randomized trials that compared different antiemetic regimens were included from MEDLINE. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Data were pooled using random-effects models. We conducted indirect comparisons using network meta-analysis of a Bayesian model. The main outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) for overall complete response (CR [i.e., no emesis and no rescue]). Safety was assessed from the trial description. All statistical tests were two-sided. Findings We systematically reviewed 24 randomized control trials (12,104 participants), which compared 12 different antiemetic regimens. Palonosetron (PAL) 0·75 mg (PAL0·75) + dexamethasone (Dex); aprepitant (APR) + a serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3) + Dex; and APR + PAL (0·25 mg or 0·50 mg) + Dex were more favorable than the reference regimen (OR, 1·51; 95% credibility interval [95%CrI], 1·18-1·91; OR, 1·78; 95%CrI, 1·58-2·05; and OR, 2·28; 95%CrI, 1·66-3·18, respectively). The oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) was more effective than conventional regimens (OR, 2·39; CrI, 1·73-3·30). Olanzapine (OLZ)-containing regimens were apparently the most effective: the ORs of OLZ + 5HT3 + Dex, OLZ + PAL + Dex, and OLZ + APR + 5HT3 + Dex were 2·78, 2·58, and 4·98, respectively. Interpretation The regimens of PAL0·75 + Dex, APR + 5HT3 + Dex, and APR + PAL + Dex were more favorable in conventional regimens (i.e., regimens without NEPA or OLZ), which support the NCCN guideline strategy. NEPA could be a better choice than conventional regimens. OLZ-containing regimens could be an optimal choice; thus, more trials need to be accumulated. Citation Format: Yokoe T, Hayashida T, Nagayama A, Seki T, Takahashi M, Takano T, Abe T, Kitagawa Y. Comparative effectiveness of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and network meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-14-11.

Ramosetron Versus Ondansetron in Combination With Aprepitant and Dexamethasone for the Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase III Trial, KCSG PC10-21.

A combination of serotonin receptor (5-hydroxytryptamine receptor type 3) antagonists, NK-1 receptor antagonist, and steroid improves the complete response (CR) of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients. Ramosetron's efficacy in this triple combination regimen has not been investigated. This prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, phase III study compares a combination of ramosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone (RAD) with a combination of ondansetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone (OAD) to prove the noninferiority of RAD in controlling highly emetogenic CINV. Aprepitant and dexamethasone were orally administered for both arms. Ramosetron and ondansetron were intravenously given to the RAD and OAD groups. The primary endpoint was no vomiting and retching and no need for rescue medication during the acute period (day 1); the noninferiority margin was -15%. A total of 299 modified intention-to-treat cancer patients who received RAD (144 patients) and OAD (155 patients) were eligible for the efficacy analysis. The CR rates of RAD versus OAD were 97.2% versus 93.6% during the acute period, 77.8% versus 73.6% during the delayed period (day 2-5), and 77.1% versus 71.6% during the overall period. Furthermore, RAD was noninferior to OAD in subgroups stratified by age, cancer type, chemotherapeutic agents, and schedule. Repeated measures analysis showed that in male patients, RAD was superior to OAD. Profiles of adverse events were similar in both groups. RAD is as effective and tolerable as OAD for CINV prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Ramosetron could be considered one of the best partners for aprepitant.

Cost-consequence analysis of aprepitant compared to standard therapy (5-HT3 + corticosteroids) for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomit

Cost-consequence analysis of aprepitant compared to standard therapy (5-HT3 + corticosteroids) for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomit

Phase III study of APF530 versus ondansetron with a neurokinin 1 antagonist + corticosteroid in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: MAGIC trial.

68 Background: Managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with delayed ( &gt; 24-120 h) highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is an unmet need. APF530, extended-release granisetron, provides sustained release over ≥ 5 days to prevent acute (0-24 h) and delayed CINV. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of APF530 in preventing CINV after HEC in a 3-drug regimen vs a standard 3-drug regimen with ondansetron (Ond). Methods: In this double-blind, multicenter study (NCT02106494), patients (pts) receiving single-day HEC (2011 ASCO guidelines) were randomized 1:1 to APF530 500 mg SC (10 mg granisetron) or Ond 0.15 mg/kg IV and stratified by cisplatin ( ≥ 50 mg/m2, yes/no). Pts were scheduled to receive concomitant dexamethasone (Dex) 12 mg IV + fosaprepitant (Fos) 150 mg IV on day 1 + PO Dex on days 2-4. The primary end point was delayed-phase complete response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue medication). Secondary end points included CR in acute and overall phases and complete control (CC; CR and no more than mild nausea) in acute, delayed, and overall phases. Treatment (tx) comparisons used chi-square test controlling for cisplatin. Adverse events (AEs) and injection-site reactions (ISRs) were assessed. Results: Modified intent-to-treat analysis included 902 pts (APF530, n = 450; Ond, n = 452) with baseline demographics balanced between tx groups. A significantly higher % of APF530 (65%) vs Ond (57%) pts had delayed-phase CR (P= .014). A significantly higher % of APF530 (61%) vs Ond (53%) pts had delayed-phase CC (P= .022, Table). CR and CC rates in acute and overall phases were numerically higher with APF530 vs Ond, but not statistically significant. APF530 was well tolerated. Most common AEs were ISRs, mostly mild or moderate. Conclusions: APF530 with Fos+Dex led to statistically higher CR and CC rates in delayed-phase CINV with HEC vs a standard 3-drug regimen of Ond with Fos+Dex. Clinical trial information: NCT02106494. [Table: see text]

Cost-consequence analysis of aprepitant compared to standard therapy (5-HT 3 + corticosteroids) for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomit

IntroductionPrevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important goal for patients receiving cytotoxic treatment. The objective of this study was to assess, from the I...

Olanzapine for Preventing Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Moderately and Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Nausea and vomiting are common adverse events in chemotherapy. In spite of the serious effects on the quality of life and further treatment, they remain overlooked by physicians, and no standard treatment has been developed. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists and palonosetron are the major agents in the standard regimen for treating moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, NK-1 receptor antagonists first became commercially available at the end of 2013 and palonosetron has not been extensively applied in China. Olanzapine was recommended as a therapy for moderate and severe CINV in antiemesis-clinical practice guidelines in oncology in 2014 for the first time. It is an atypical antipsychotic agent, which can block multiple receptors on neurotransmitters. During more than 10 years, olanzapine has demonstrated significant effects in preventing CINV and treating breakthrough and refractor CINV, which was observed in case reports, precise retrospective studies, and phase I, II and III clinical trials, with no grade 3 to 4 adverse events. In particular, it is superior to aprepitant and dexamethasone in delayed nausea and vomiting. Therefore, this compound is worthy of further investigation.

PCN64 - Cost-Consequence Analysis of an Aprepitant Regimen Versus a Standard Antiemetic Regimen for the Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Italy

PCN64 - Cost-Consequence Analysis of an Aprepitant Regimen Versus a Standard Antiemetic Regimen for the Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Italy

Palonosetron Plus Dexamethasone in Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: Pooled Data from Two Phase III Trials

Data from two randomized trials were pooled to further characterize the effectiveness of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The analysis included 1411 patients who were randomized to receive palonosetron or ondansetron/granisetron intravenously on day 1 plus either 1-day or 3-day dexamethasone dosing. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no rescue antiemetics over days 1-5) in cycle one. Data across the studies were analyzed by the Mantel-Haenszel method. The vast majority of patients received either cisplatin (62%) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (34%). The palonosetron regimen provided a 12 percentage-point improvement in the rate of overall complete response compared with the control regimen (49.2 vs 37.3%; odds ratio: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.33-2.04; p < 0.0001). The frequency of no delayed nausea at all daily periods was consistently higher in the palonosetron group. The current analysis confirmed that palonosetron plus dexamethasone improved control of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting throughout 5 days postchemotherapy to a significantly greater extent than the combination including older 5-HT3 antagonists.