Safety and tolerability of intravenous aprepitant and fosaprepitant in children with cancer: A retrospective, single-center review.

NK-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) are key agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Current pediatric practice guidelines recommend the use of intravenous fosaprepitant or oral aprepitant. However, there are reports of hypersensitivity reactions with fosaprepitant due to polysorbate 80. Intravenous aprepitant does not contain polysorbate 80, but its use in pediatric patients has not been described. In this retrospective, single-center study, 106 pediatric patients received either fosaprepitant or intravenous aprepitant as part of their antiemetic regimen. Intravenous aprepitant was well tolerated and did not lead to any instances of hypersensitivity reactions requiring discontinuation.

Commonly used antiemetics for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after Caesarean delivery with neuraxial morphine: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dopamine antagonists, 5-HT3 antagonists, and dexamethasone are frequently used in obstetrics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the superiority of any drug class is yet to be established. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis in women receiving neuraxial morphine for Caesarean delivery. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Wanfang Data for eligible randomised controlled trials. Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) within 24 h after surgery. We used a Bayesian random-effects model and calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous data. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses for primary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies with 4238 women were included. In the primary analyses of all women, 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone significantly reduced PON and POV compared with placebo, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone were more effective than monotherapy. In the subgroup analyses, similar results were seen in women receiving epidural morphine or intrathecal morphine alone but not in women receiving intrathecal morphine with fentanyl or sufentanil. However, most included studies had some concerns or a high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low. CONCLUSIONS: Combined 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone are more effective than monotherapy in preventing PONV associated with neuraxial morphine after Caesarean delivery. Future studies are needed to determine the role of prophylactic antiemetics in women receiving intrathecal morphine and lipophilic opioids. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023454602.

Antiemetic medications for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Children continue to experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), despite effective antiemetic medications. Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines are underpinned by narrative syntheses and meta-analyses that compare only two treatments. This means not all antiemetics have been compared to one another, and estimates remain imprecise. We apply network meta-analysis (NMA) to overcome these limitations by comparing multiple treatments simultaneously. METHODS: A systematic review identified and critically appraised RCTs comparing antiemetics recommended and licensed for the prevention of CINV in children. Bayesian NMA compared and ranked antiemetic effectiveness for the outcomes complete (CR) and partial response (PR) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases, nausea, and decreased food intake. Antiemetics given with and without dexamethasone were compared in separate networks as their underlying populations differed. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (3115 patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)) were included. When given with dexamethasone, NK1 antagonists with ondansetron ranked highest for CR and PR in the acute and overall phases, PR in the delayed phase, and decreased food intake. Post hoc analysis shows further a benefit of adding olanzapine to regimens of aprepitant and ondansetron. Ondansetron ranked lower than palonosetron, for CR in the delayed and overall phases, and ondansetron was less effective than palonosetron for nausea prevention. Rankings for other regimens, including those given without dexamethasone, were uncertain or inconsistent across outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings serve to support the current recommendations of olanzapine (when given with aprepitant and ondansetron) and NK1 antagonists' regimens receiving HEC, but note that evidence of a significant difference in relative benefit, between patients receiving MEC and HEC, does not yet exist. Recommendations for palonosetron as the preferred 5HT3 antagonists may be extended, particularly, to those who are at high risk of nausea.

Adherence to antiemetic guidelines in solid cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is known to induce nausea and vomiting (CINV) in approximately 90% of cancer patients undergoing this regimen unless proper prophylactic antiemetics are administered. This study aimed to analyze the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen during the first cycle of chemotherapy and assess the compliance rate with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. METHODS: This retrospective study utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2020 provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The claims data encompassed 10 to 13% of inpatients admitted at least once each year. Patients with solid cancers treated with two HEC regimens, namely anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC) and cisplatin-based regimens, were selected as the study population. We evaluated the use of a three-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen, including a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone and compliance with the NCCN guidelines. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to estimate the influence of variables on guideline adherence. RESULTS: A total of 3119 patients were included in the analysis. The overall compliance rate with the NCCN guidelines for prophylactic antiemetics was 74.3%, with higher rates observed in the AC group (87.9%) and lower rates in the cisplatin group (60.4%). The AC group had a 6.37 times higher likelihood of receiving guideline-adherent antiemetics than the cisplatin group. Further analysis revealed that, compared to 2016, the probability of complying with the guidelines in 2019 and 2020 was 0.72 times and 0.76 times lower, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed that a considerable proportion of HEC-treated patients received guideline-adherent antiemetic therapies. However, given the variations in adherence rates between different chemotherapy regimens (AC vs. cisplatin), efforts to improve adherence and optimize antiemetic treatment remain essential for providing the best possible care for patients experiencing CINV.

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

PURPOSE: Although 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. METHODS: Pediatric 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. RESULTS: Seventeen 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. CONCLUSION: In 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.

Comparison of olanzapine 2.5 mg and 5 mg in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a Japanese nationwide database study.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is prescribed as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting at a dose of 2.5 or 5 mg in Asian countries. We compared the effectiveness of olanzapine 2.5 mg and 5 mg in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy for lung cancer. METHODS: Using a Japanese national inpatient database, we identified patients who received olanzapine doses of 2.5 or 5 mg during high-emetogenic chemotherapy for lung cancer between January 2016 and March 2021. We conducted a 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis with adjustment for various factors, including those affecting olanzapine metabolism. The outcomes were additional antiemetic drug administration (within 2-5 days after chemotherapy initiation), length of hospital stay, and total hospitalization costs. RESULTS: Olanzapine 2.5 and 5.0 mg were used in 2905 and 4287 patients, respectively. The propensity score-matched analysis showed that olanzapine 2.5 mg administration was significantly associated with a higher proportion of additional antiemetic drug administration (36% vs. 31%, p < 0.001) than olanzapine 5 mg. The median length of hospital stay was 8 days in both groups. Total hospitalization cost did not differ significantly between the two doses of olanzapine (5061 vs. 5160 USD, p = 0.07). The instrumental variable analysis demonstrated compatible results. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic use of olanzapine 2.5 mg during chemotherapy for lung cancer was associated with a higher rate of additional antiemetic drugs than olanzapine 5 mg.

Defining the clinical benefits of adding a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis 2023 from the Japan society of clinical oncology.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly affects patient quality of life and the overall effectiveness of chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) and corticosteroids provides clinically meaningful benefits in preventing CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web to identify clinical studies evaluating NK1RAs combined with 5-HT3RAs and dexamethasone for managing CINV in MEC. The endpoints were complete response (CR), complete control (CC), total control (TC), adverse events, and costs. The data were analyzed using a random effects model. RESULTS: From 142 articles identified, 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 4,405 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Approximately 60% of the patients received carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. The meta-analysis showed that triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1RA was significantly more effective for achieving CR than doublet prophylaxis in each phase. Regarding CC, the triplet antiemetic prophylaxis was significantly more effective than the doublet in the overall (risk difference [RD]: 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06-0.17) and delayed (RD: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.13) phases. For TC, no significant differences were observed in any phase. Adding NK1RA did not cause adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adding NK1RA to CBDCA-based chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits. However, the clinical benefits of NK1RA-containing regimens for overall MEC have not yet been established and require RCTs that exclusively evaluate MEC regimens other than CBDCA-based chemotherapy.

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after orthognathic surgery: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common adverse events following orthognathic surgery. It's a distressing feeling for patients and continues to be the cause of postoperative complications such as bleeding, delayed healing, and wound infection. This scoping review aims to identify effective PONV prophylaxis strategies during orthognathic surgery that have emerged in the past 15 years. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and Embase from 2008 to May 2023. Studies meeting the following criteria were eligible for inclusion: (1) recruited patients undergo any orthognathic surgery; (2) evaluated any pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic method to prevent PONV. Studies meeting the following criteria were excluded: (1) case series, review papers, or retrospective studies; (2) did not report our prespecified outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in this review. Pharmacological methods for PONV prevention include ondansetron and dexamethasone (3 studies), peripheral nerve block technique (4 studies), dexmedetomidine (1 study), pregabalin (2 studies), nefopam (2 studies), remifentanil (1 study), propofol (2 studies), and penehyclidine (1 study). Non-pharmacologic methods include capsicum plaster (1 study), throat packs (2 studies) and gastric aspiration (2 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, we conclude that prophylactic antiemetics like dexamethasone, ondansetron, and penehyclidine are the first defense against PONV. Multimodal analgesia with nerve block techniques and non-opioid analgesics should be considered due to their notable opioid-sparing and PONV preventive effect. For the non-pharmacological methods, throat packs are not recommended for routine use because of their poor effect and serious complications. More prospective RCTs are required to confirm whether gastric aspiration can prevent PONV effectively for patients undergoing orthognathic surgery.

Factors associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the National Referral Hospital, Bhutan: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common distressing symptoms experienced after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We report the rate, and the factors associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting, the patterns of prophylactic antiemetic prescription, and the anesthetic techniques used among patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the Jigme Dorji Wangchuck (JDW) National Referral Hospital, Bhutan. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at the JDW National Referral Hospital, from January to December 2018. All the patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were included in the study. The demographic variables, premedication, induction agents, muscle relaxants, inhalational agents for maintenance, opioid and adjuvant analgesics, the reversal agents used, and the occurrence of PONV within 24 h were recorded. Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 23). Continuous variables were compared using a t-test or Mann-Whitney test, categorical variables were tested using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: 190 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia. The rate of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 31.1% (59/190). Over half (53.7%, 102/190) of the study population were within 21-40 years of age, over 80% (157/190) were female, and 2/3rd were overweight and obese. The most frequently used premedication was ranitidine (39%, 34/87) and metoclopramide (31%, 27/87). More than half (57.4%, 109/190) of the patients received morphine as an opioid analgesic before induction. Sodium thiopentone was a commonly used induction agent (65.8%, 125/190). Succinylcholine and atracurium were mostly preferred muscle relaxants. Isoflurane and air were the most used inhalational anesthetic agents for the maintenance of anesthesia. Ondansetron was the most preferred anti-emetics during the intraoperative period. Previous history of motion sickness (OR 5.8, 95%CI 2.9-11.2, p < 0.001), and use of sodium thiopental (OR 4.1, 95%CI 1.9-9.1, p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for PONV. The use of antiemetics (OR 0.1, 95%CI 0.0-0.4, p = 0.002), propofol (OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.1-0.5, p < 0.001), adjuvant analgesic paracetamol (OR 0.4, 95%CI 0.2-0.8, p = 0.026), and adequate hydration with IV fluids (OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.9-1.0, p = 0.042) were preventive factors for PONV. CONCLUSION: The rate of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy was high. History of motion sickness and use of sodium thiopental for induction were independent risk factors of PONV. The use of multimodal prophylactic antiemetics was robust and superior to monotherapy in preventing PONV. This finding re-emphasizes the need for risk stratification and appropriate use of antiemetics and anesthetic agents to prevent PONV.

Effectiveness of Palonosetron, 1-Day Dexamethasone, and Aprepitant in Patients Undergoing Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, is associated with poor control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether using palonosetron (PALO) as a 5HT3RA provides superior control with CINV than first-generation (1st) 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with a DEX-sparing strategy. METHODS: Pooled patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, and prospective observational study were analyzed to compare the incidence of CINV between patients administered PALO and 1st 5HT3RA in combination with 1-day DEX and APR. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CINV, pattern of CINV, or severity of nausea by type of 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with DEX-sparing strategy. In both groups, the incidence of nausea gradually increased from day 3, peaked on day 4 or 5, and then declined slowly. The visual analog scale scores in the delayed phase remained high throughout the 7-day observation period. CONCLUSION: Careful patient selection and symptom monitoring are needed when implementing the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis for patients undergoing CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, additional strategies may be needed to achieve better control of delayed CINV.

Addressing adherence to guidelines on prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a distressing adverse effect in children receiving cancer treatment. There are evidence-based pediatric clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on chemotherapy emetogenicity and acute CINV prevention, but adherence to these guidelines is low. PROCEDURE: A quality improvement-based study was conducted at McMaster Children's Hospital. The SMART aim was to increase adherence to guidelines on prevention of acute CINV in hospitalized patients receiving high (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) from baseline 25% to more than 70% by June 2021. Barriers were identified by process mapping, and a series of interventions were implemented. RESULTS: Guideline adherence was assessed in 270 inpatient chemotherapy administrations (HEC, MEC). Data were collected on 131 charts pre interventions and 139 charts post interventions. Interventions included education, addition of guideline-recommended anti-emetics to the inpatient formulary, and implementation of a standardized CPG tool. Initial rates of total CINV guideline adherence were 25%, which improved to 72% post intervention (p < .001). In subgroup analysis, guideline adherence in the MEC group improved from 13% to 34% (p = .015), and in the HEC group from 32% to 93% (p < .001). The most common reason for nonadherence in the HEC group was failure to use aprepitant as anti-emetic, and in MEC was option for ondansetron monotherapy prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Using quality improvement methodology, barriers to guideline adherence were identified and interventions implemented. Guideline adherence for prevention of CINV improved, particularly in the HEC group but less for the MEC group. Future steps will include sustainability of interventions and addressing adherence in the MEC group.

Efficacy of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron plus dexamethasone in preventing nausea and emesis during fractionated radiotherapy with weekly cisplatin chemotherapy: interim analysis of a randomized, prospective, clinical trial using competing risk analysis.

PURPOSE: There are no well-recognized guidelines for antiemesis during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for cervical cancer (CC) and nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) until now. The study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly low-dose cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with CC or NPC. METHODS: Patients with CC or NPC were scheduled to receive fractionated radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin (25-40 mg/m2) chemotherapy for at least 5 weeks. Patients stratified by tumor type and induction chemotherapy were 1:1 randomly assigned to receive fosaprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone or tropisetron plus dexamethasone as an antiemetic regimen. Efficacy was assessed primarily by the cumulative incidence of emesis after 5 weeks of treatment, and safety by adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Between July 2020 and July 2022, 116 patients consented to the study of whom 103 were included in this interim analysis (fosaprepitant group [N = 52] vs control group [N = 51]). The cumulative incidence of emesis at 5 weeks (competing risk analysis) was 25% (95% CI 14.2-37.4) for the fosaprepitant group compared with 59% (95% CI 43.9-71.0) for the control group. There was a significantly lower cumulative risk of emesis in the fosaprepitant group (HR 0.35 [95% CI 0.19-0.64]; p < 0.001). Fosaprepitant was well tolerated as the incidences of adverse events in the two groups were comparable. CONCLUSION: The addition of fosaprepitant to tropisetron plus dexamethasone significantly reduced the risk of nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of CCRT in patients with CC or NPC, and fosaprepitant was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on October 3, 2022, number NCT05564286.

2023 MASCC/ESMO consensus antiemetic guidelines related to integrative and non-pharmacological therapies.

PURPOSE: Review the literature to propose suggestions or recommendations for controlling nausea and vomiting through integrative and non-pharmacological treatments for the MASCC/ESMO 2023 update of its antiemetic guidelines. METHODS: The authors identified available systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses for 12 integrative therapies, including acupressure, acupuncture, auricular therapy, electrical stimulation of point PC6, ginger use (i.e., Zingiber officinale), guided imagery, hypnosis, inhalation aromatherapy, music therapy, food-based interventions, progressive muscle relaxation, and reflexology. Reviews were assessed for quality through the AMSTAR2 tool. A consensus committee reviewed recommendations as per MASCC/ESMO established processes. RESULTS: Thirty-nine systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were used. There were major methodological flaws for many of the trials used as the bases for the reviews. No recommendation for ingested ginger could be made because of conflicting evidence. Recommendations were possible for acupuncture/electroacupuncture treatments, food-based interventions, and progressive muscle relaxation training alone or combined with guided imagery. No recommendations could be reached for a number of food-based approaches, inhalation aromatherapy, hypnosis in adults, music therapy, and reflexology. CONCLUSION: While a limited number of suggestions are provided, there is a need for significantly higher quality trials in many of the therapeutic approaches assessed, before stronger recommendations and a wider range of approaches are made.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO consensus recommendations: prevention of nausea and vomiting following high-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m2 and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. RESULTS: Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK1 receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented. CONCLUSION: There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or between NK1 receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.

Veliparib with frontline chemotherapy and as maintenance in Japanese women with ovarian cancer: a subanalysis of efficacy, safety, and antiemetic use in the phase 3 VELIA trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 VELIA trial evaluated veliparib with carboplatin/paclitaxel and as maintenance in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated stage III-IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma were randomized 1:1:1 to control (placebo with carboplatin/paclitaxel and placebo maintenance), veliparib-combination-only (veliparib with carboplatin/paclitaxel and placebo maintenance), or veliparib-throughout (veliparib with carboplatin/paclitaxel and veliparib maintenance). Randomization stratification factors included geographic region (Japan versus North America or rest of the world). Primary end point was investigator-assessed median progression-free survival. Efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics were evaluated in a subgroup of Japanese patients. RESULTS: Seventy-eight Japanese patients were randomized to control (n = 23), veliparib-combination-only (n = 30), and veliparib-throughout (n = 25) arms. In the Japanese subgroup, median progression-free survival for veliparib-throughout versus control was 27.4 and 19.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.16; p = 0.1 [not significant]). In the veliparib-throughout arm, grade 3/4 leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia rates were higher for Japanese (32%/88%/32%) versus non-Japanese (17%/56%/28%) patients. Grade 3/4 anemia rates were higher in non-Japanese (65%) versus Japanese (48%) patients. Early introduction of olanzapine during veliparib monotherapy maintenance phase may help prevent premature discontinuation of veliparib, via its potent antiemetic efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Median progression-free survival was numerically longer in Japanese patients in the veliparib-throughout versus control arm, consistent with results in the overall study population. Pharmacokinetics were comparable between Japanese and non-Japanese patients. Data for the subgroup of Japanese patients were not powered to show statistical significance but to guide further investigation.

Olanzapine as an add-on, pre-operative anti-emetic drug for postoperative nausea or vomiting: a randomised controlled trial.

Postoperative nausea or vomiting occurs in up to 40% in patients with multiple risk factors, despite prophylaxis. Olanzapine is an antipsychotic drug that is used to prevent nausea and vomiting in palliative care and to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This study aimed to examine whether pre-operative olanzapine, as a prophylactic anti-emetic added to intra-operative dexamethasone, ondansetron and total intravenous anaesthesia, reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting. We performed a multiply-blinded randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18-60 years with cancer at high risk of postoperative nausea or vomiting (three or four risk factors according to the Apfel criteria) plus a previous history of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Patients were allocated at random to receive 10 mg olanzapine or placebo orally 1 h before surgery in addition to a two-drug regimen (dexamethasone and ondansetron) and propofol anaesthesia to prevent postoperative nausea or vomiting. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 h after surgery. In total, 100 patients were enrolled; 47 in the olanzapine group and 49 in the control group completed the study. The baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. The incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 h after surgery was lower in the olanzapine group (12/47, 26%) than in the control group (31/49, 63%) (p = 0.008, RR 0.40 (95%CI 0.21-0.79)). Adding pre-operative oral olanzapine to intra-operative dexamethasone and ondansetron was highly effective in reducing the risk of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery in patients with a previous history of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and at least three Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea or vomiting.

Effect of dexamethasone and ramosetron on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in low-risk patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated the effect of antiemetics on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk groups. However, few studies have investigated the effect of antiemetics in patients at low risk of developing PONV. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, 177 patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to three groups. Patients allocated to group C (control group) received 2 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline, those allocated to group R (ramosetron group) received 0.3 mg of intravenous ramosetron, and those allocated to group DR (ramosetron plus dexamethasone group) received 5 mg of intravenous dexamethasone and 0.3 mg of intravenous ramosetron. RESULTS: Finally, 174 patients completed the study, and the types of surgeries were orthopedic (n = 80), rhinologic (n = 47), urologic (n = 29), and others (n = 18). The incidence of PONV up to 48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in group DR than in group C. The incidence of PONV up to 0-1 h postoperatively was significantly lower in groups R and DR than in group C. The usage pattern of rescue antiemetics was consistent with the incidence of PONV. The percentage of patients requiring rescue analgesics 0-1 h postoperatively was significantly lower in groups R and DR than in group C. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of dexamethasone and ramosetron demonstrated a superior effect in preventing PONV for 48 h after surgery under general anesthesia than saline in patients at low risk of developing PONV. Compared with saline injections, ramosetron injections yielded better outcomes for the incidence of PONV and the use of rescue antiemetics and rescue analgesics 0-1 h postoperatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration number: criskorea@korea.kr, KCT0006749.

Effectiveness of antiemetic in reducing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adult patients; An oncology center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are two serious adverse effect of cancer chemotherapy. The objectives of this study are to assess patient satisfaction with antiemetics prescribed, incidence of nausea and vomiting in cancer patients, and the effectiveness of antiemetic regimens in reducing CINV. METHODS: This is a prospective observational cross-sectional patient survey study, conducted between January and July 2021 in the oncology center at King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A suitable, data entry form was designed to collect data including patient demographics, cancer type, antiemetics prescribed, chemotherapy regimen, and incidence of CINV. RESULTS: The sample comprised 283 cancer patients with a mean age of 47.7 (±14.6) years. Colorectal and breast cancer (n = 67; 23.6%, for each) were the two most common diagnoses. Among the patients who received chemotherapy, most patients (n = 144; 50.8%) received chemotherapy that was classified as highly emetogenic, and 139 (49%) received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Antiemetics were given to control CINV before chemotherapy administration (as prophylaxis) were either combination therapy (170 patients (60.0%) received four classes of antiemetics, 72 (25.4%) received three classes; and 31 (10.9%) received two classes) or monotherapy (six patients (2.1%) received one drug). Four patients (1.4%) did not receive any antiemetic medication. Antiemetics given to control CINV after chemotherapy administration (for delayed CINV) were also either in combination (151 patients (53.3%) received three classes of antiemetics and 94 (33.2%) received two classes) or as monotherapy, where 27 patients (9.5%) received one medication. Eleven patients (3.8%) did not receive any antiemetic. The incidence rates for acute and delayed nausea after chemotherapy treatment were 32.1% and 30.7%, respectively; and those for acute and delayed vomiting were 13.4% and 10.2%, respectively. Acute nausea was much more frequent than vomiting. CONCLUSION: The incidence of CINV was relatively high, and patients who received chemotherapy continued to experience nausea and vomiting despite receiving antiemetic treatment. This demonstrates that antiemetic regimens used are not effective in preventing CINV.

Tolerability and efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy when administered with a corticosteroid-free anti-emetic regimen.

BACKGROUND: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with chemotherapy is commonplace. This study sought to determine whether the omission of corticosteroids from the antiemetic regimen in patients receiving chemoimmunotherapy changes control of nausea and time on ICI therapy. METHODS: This single-site, retrospective, observational study was conducted at Veteran Health Indiana, a level 1A Veterans Affairs tertiary care facility. All patients who received concurrent chemoimmunotherapy between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020, were included. The replacement of corticosteroids with olanzapine in chemoimmunotherapy regimens occurred on March 27, 2019. Outcomes were compared in patients who received corticosteroids as part of antiemetic prophylaxis versus patients in whom corticosteroids were omitted. Outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving an anti-nausea complete control response (CCR) or partial control response (PCR) with antiemetic prophylaxis, and the time on ICI therapy in months. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients received a chemotherapeutic agent with a concomitant ICI during the designated time frame and were included for anti-emetogenic and ICI efficacy analysis, 36 patients received corticosteroids with chemoimmunotherapy and 36 patients did not. CCR was achieved in 55.6% of patients who received corticosteroids and in 69.4% of patients who did not. PCR was 19.4% versus 25.0%, respectively. Removal of corticosteroids from chemoimmunotherapy regimens did not result in a significant difference in nausea control or time on ICI therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest corticosteroids may be safely continued, or removed and replaced by other novel agents for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when administered with ICIs.

Assessment of the change of antiemetic prophylaxis from double to triple combination in patients with high dose carboplatin chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the adverse events that most affects oncologic patients' quality of life. Carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 belongs to agents with high emetic risk (moderate risk in ASCO guidelines). We aimed to compare the effectiveness of netupitant/palonosetron and dexamethasone triple combination (TC) therapy versus ondansetron and dexamethasone double combination (DC) therapy as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. As a secondary endpoint, in TC group we evaluated the effectiveness of changing NEPA administration timing from 1 h to 15 min before chemotherapy. METHODS: Open-label prospective study conducted in a tertiary-care hospital in patients receiving carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. CINV was evaluated using MASCC antiemetic tool, in acute (<24 h) and delayed phase (24-120 h). Results were analyzed using χ2 test. RESULTS: Two-hundred four completed questionnaires (CQ) were analyzed (76 in DC and 128 in TC). The proportion of patients who remained emesis-free was superior for TC-treated group compared to DC, either in acute (99.2% vs 92.1%, p = 0.0115) and delayed phase (97.6% vs 90.7%, p = 0.043). Likewise, a higher proportion of TC-treated patients compared to DC remained nausea-free for the first 24 h after treatment (90.6% vs 71%, p = 0.0004) and between 24 and 120 h (82.3% vs 62.7%, p = 0.0025). The change of NEPA administration time showed similar effectiveness in terms of CINV control (81.6% vs 74.5%, p = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: TC showed superiority in early and delayed CINV control in carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 regimens, with no significant differences among cancer types. Change in NEPA administration timing has beneficial implications; it allows NEPA to be administered at hospitals before chemotherapy session.