Antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in haematologic malignancies patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Which is the best standard of care? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic prophylaxis in haematological patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy as part of their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioning regimens. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane database to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of antiemetic prophylaxis. Studies in English, French, Italian or Spanish were included. This review is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42023406380. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were analysed. The antiemetic regimens evaluated ranged from monotherapy with 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor 3 antagonists (5-HT3RAs) to complex combinations including olanzapine, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3RAs and corticosteroids. Complete response rates for triplet or quadruple regimens varied between 23.5% and 81.9%. Although no significant adverse effects were observed, minor symptoms such as diarrhoea, constipation, sedation and headaches were reported. CONCLUSION: Existing evidence on HSCT antiemetic therapy highlights its benefits but fails to provide clear clinical directions. The choice between triplet and quadruplet therapies for different patient scenarios is still uncertain. Until more detailed research is available, healthcare providers must rely on the latest guidelines and their judgement to customise antiemetic care for each patient's specific needs and risks.

Correction: Del Valle-Moreno et al. Model-Informed Precision Dosing Software Tools for Dosage Regimen Individualization: A Scoping Review. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 1859.

There was an error in the original publication [...].

Efficacy and safety of niraparib in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: retrospective observational study in a tertiary hospital.

BACKGROUND: Niraparib has been authorized for maintenance treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer after first-line treatment with platinum, in partial or complete response. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of maintenance niraparib in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) patients in a tertiary hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational unicentre study included women diagnosed with ovarian adenocarcinoma who received niraparib. Eligibility criteria encompassed women with PSROC, in response to platinum chemotherapy, and not previously treated with other PARPis. Data on demographics, comorbidities, BRCA mutation status, disease stage, treatment history and adverse events were recorded. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients were included, with a median age of 63.5 years. The majority of patients received niraparib at 200 mg/day based on Research on Adverse Drug Events and Report criteria. Median OS was 30 months (95% CI: 16.76-43.23), and median PFS was 8 months (95% CI: 2.48-13.52). Adverse effects were more frequent during the initial months of treatment, with most classified as CTCAE v5 grade 1-2. Dose reductions, interruption of treatment and discontinuations were observed due to haematologic toxicities primarily. CONCLUSION: This real-world study showed that maintenance niraparib in PSROC patients had effectiveness and safety profiles consistent with clinical trials and other observational studies. Median PFS and OS were comparable to previous reports, and most adverse events were manageable with dose modifications. The results support the use of niraparib as a maintenance therapy option in this patient population.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in hematologic malignancies patients receiving conditioning protocols for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A study protocol for a systematic review. / [Artículo traducido] Profilaxis antiemética en pacientes con neoplasias hematológicas que reciben protocolos de acondicionamiento para el trasplante de células madre hematopoyéticas: protocolo de estudio para una revisión sistemática.

OBJECTIVE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting continue to pose a significant challenge for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. This study aims to synthesize available evidence on antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, in order to identify the best standard of care. METHODS: A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov., and Cochrane databases. Studies written in English, French, Italian or Spanish will be considered. After screening the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two independent reviewers will extract data and assess the risk of bias in eligible articles. This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. This protocol is registered in the Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42023406380. DISCUSSION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a debilitating side effect that presents a significant challenge for patients with hematologic malignancies. Despite the publication of various guidelines, none of them includes specific recommendations for each chemotherapy regimen. Therefore, analyzing the primary antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation would be valuable in enhancing patients' quality of life.

Antiemetic prophylaxis in hematologic malignancies patients receiving conditioning protocols for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A study protocol for a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting continue to pose a significant challenge for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. This study aims to synthesize available evidence on antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, in order to identify the best standard of care. METHODS: A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Clinical-Trials.gov., and Cochrane databases. Studies written in English, French, Italian, or Spanish will be considered. After screening the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2 independent reviewers will extract data and assess the risk of bias in eligible articles. This protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. This protocol is registered in the Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42023406380. DISCUSSION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a debilitating side effect that presents a significant challenge for patients with hematologic malignancies. Despite the publication of various guidelines, none of them include specific recommendations for each chemotherapy regimen. Therefore, analyzing the primary antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation would be valuable in enhancing patients' quality of life.

Model-Informed Precision Dosing Software Tools for Dosage Regimen Individualization: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacokinetic nomograms, equations, and software are considered the main tools available for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM). Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) is an advanced discipline of TDM that allows dose individualization, and requires a software for knowledge integration and statistical calculations. Due to its precision and extensive applicability, the use of these software is widespread in clinical practice. However, the currently available evidence on these tools remains scarce. OBJECTIVES: To review and summarize the available evidence on MIPD software tools to facilitate its identification, evaluation, and selection by users. METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, OpenAIRE, and BASE before July 2022. The PRISMA-ScR was applied. The main inclusion criteria were studies focused on developing software for use in clinical practice, research, or modelling. RESULTS: Twenty-eight software were classified as MIPD software. Ten are currently unavailable. The remaining 18 software were described in depth. It is noteworthy that all MIPD software used Bayesian statistical methods to estimate drug exposure and all provided a population model by default, except NONMEN. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic software have become relevant tools for TDM. MIPD software have been compared, facilitating its selection for use in clinical practice. However, it would be interesting to standardize the quality and validate the software tools.