Comparing the Efficacy of Fosnetupitant, an NK1 Receptor Antagonist in CDDP-Based Regimens, with That of Fosaprepitant and Aprepitant: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Existing antiemetic therapy against emetic-risk agents across malignancies 24 h post-dose in the acute period in cisplatin (CDDP)-based regimens yields a satisfactory complete response (CR) rate of ≥90%. However, the control rate after 24 h in the delayed period is unsatisfactory. This study compared the efficacy of fosnetupitant (F-NTP), a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, with that of fosaprepitant (F-APR) and aprepitant (APR) in the treatment of patients with cancer at high emetic risk due to chemotherapy. In this retrospective case-control study involving patients receiving cisplatin-containing regimens and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists, patients were divided into three groups based on prophylactic antiemetic therapy: F-NTP, F-APR, and APR. The CR rate was evaluated for each period up to 168 h and further subdivided into acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), overall (0-120 h), and beyond-delayed (120-168 h) periods. Eighty-eight patients were included in the F-NTP group, 66 in the F-APR group, and 268 in the APR group. The CR rates at 0-168 and 120-168 h after cisplatin administration were significantly higher in the F-NTP group than in the F-APR and APR groups. After adjusting for confounding factors, F-NTP use was an independent factor in the multivariate analysis. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy, including F-NTP, was effective and well-tolerated during the delayed period. The efficacy of F-NTP in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was superior to those of F-APR and APR during the study period.

Investigating the efficacy and safety of olanzapine prophylaxis for opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (JORTC-PAL20): a study protocol for an open-label, single-arm exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: In opioid therapy for cancer pain, opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) occur in 20%-40% of patients during initial opioid treatment or increasing opioid doses. OINV result in failure to achieve pain relief due to poor opioid adherence. Therefore, antiemetics are used to prevent OINV, but their efficacy and safety in this context have not yet been fully elucidated. Olanzapine is a promising antiemetic for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-arm, single-centre exploratory study will evaluate the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine in patients with cancer pain who are withholding initial regular opioid therapy. Thirty-five patients will be enrolled. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients achieving complete control (CC) of OINV during 5 days of opioid treatment. CC was defined as the absence of emetic episodes, no need for rescue medication to treat nausea, and minimal or no nausea (3 or less on an 11-point categorical scale). Secondary endpoints include the complete response, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication during the overall assessment period, the time from opioid initiation to first emetic episode, the time from opioid initiation to first rescue antiemetic administration, and adverse events graded by Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 1.0 and CTCAE version 5.0. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by National Cancer Center Hospital Certified Review Board. The results will be used as preliminary data to conduct a validation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) jRCTs031220008.

2023 updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus recommendations: Prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetic risk antineoplastic agents.

PURPOSE: Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2015 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of moderate emetic potential. METHODS: A systematic literature review was completed using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases. The literature search was done from June 2015 to January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of moderate emetic potential. RESULTS: Of 342 papers identified, 19 were relevant to update recommendations about managing antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic cancer treatment regimens of moderate emetic potential. Important practice changing updates include the use of emetic prophylaxis based on a triple combination of neurokinin (NK)1 receptor antagonist, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and steroids for patients undergoing carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) and women < 50 years of age receiving oxaliplatin-based treatment. A double combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and steroids remains the recommended prophylaxis for other MEC. Based on the data in the literature, it is recommended that the administration of steroids should be limited to day 1 in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, due to the demonstration of non-inferiority between the different regimens. More data is needed on the emetogenicity of new agents at moderate emetogenic risk. Of particular interest would be antiemetic studies with the agents sacituzumab-govitecan and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Experience to date with these agents indicate an emetogenic potential comparable to carboplatin > AUC 5. Future studies should systematically include patient-related risk assessment in order to define the risk of emesis with MEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and improve the guidelines for new drugs. CONCLUSION: This antiemetic MASCC-ESMO guideline update includes new recommendations considering individual risk factors and the optimization of supportive anti-emetic treatments.

2023 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: prevention of radiotherapy- and chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV and C-RINV) are common and distressing, and there is a need for guidance for clinicians to provide up to date optimal antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment. Through a comprehensive review of the literature concerning RINV and C-RINV, this manuscript aims to update the evidence for antiemetic prophylaxis and rescue therapy and provide a new edition of recommendations for the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic guidelines for RINV and C-RINV. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including data published from May 1, 2015, to January 31, 2023, was performed. All authors assessed the literature. RESULTS: The searches yielded 343 references; 37 met criteria for full article review, and 20 were ultimately retained. Only one randomized study in chemoradiation had the impact to provide new recommendations for the antiemetic guideline. Based on expert consensus, it was decided to change the recommendation for the "low emetic risk" category from "prophylaxis or rescue" to "rescue" only, while the drugs of choice remain unchanged. CONCLUSION: As for the previous guideline, the serotonin receptor antagonists are still the cornerstone in antiemetic prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by high and moderate emetic risk radiotherapy. The guideline update provides new recommendation for the management of C-RINV for radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin. To avoid overtreatment, antiemetic prophylaxis is no longer recommended for the "low emetic risk" category.

Antiemetic effects of sclareol, possibly through 5-HT3 and D2 receptor interaction pathways: In-vivo and in-silico studies.

BACKGROUND: Emesis is a complex physiological phenomenon that serves as a defense against numerous toxins, stressful situations, adverse medication responses, chemotherapy, and movement. Nevertheless, preventing emesis during chemotherapy or other situations is a significant issue for researchers. Hence, the majority view contends that successfully combining therapy is the best course of action. In-vivo analysis offers a more comprehensive grasp of how compounds behave within a complex biological environment, whereas in-silico evaluation refers to the use of computational models to forecast biological interactions. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the effects of Sclareol (SCL) on copper sulphate-induced emetic chicks and to investigate the combined effects of these compounds using a conventional co-treatment approach and in-silico study. METHODS: SCL (5, 10, and 15 mg/kg) administered orally with or without pre-treatment with anti-emetic drugs (Ondansetron (ODN): 24 mg/kg, Domperidone (DOM): 80 mg/kg, Hyoscine butylbromide (HYS): 100 mg/kg, and Promethazine hydrochloride (PRO): 100 mg/kg) to illustrate the effects and the potential involvement with 5HT3, D2, M3/AChM, H1, or NK1 receptors by SCL. Furthermore, an in-silico analysis was conducted to forecast the role of these receptors in the emetic process. RESULTS: The results suggest that SCL exerted a dose-dependent anti-emetic effect on the chicks. Pretreatment with SCL-10 significantly minimized the number of retches and lengthened the emesis tendency of the experimental animals. SCL-10 significantly increased the anti-emetic effects of ODN and DOM. However, compared to the ODN-treated group, (SCL-10 + ODN) group considerably (p < 0.0001) extended the latency duration (109.40 ± 1.03 s) and significantly (p < 0.01) decreased the number of retches (20.00 ± 0.70), indicating an anti-emetic effect on the test animals. In in-silico analysis, SCL exhibited promising binding affinities with suggesting receptors. CONCLUSION: SCL-10 exerted an inhibitory-like effect on emetic chicks, probably through the interaction of the 5HT3 and D2 receptors. Further studies are highly appreciated to validate this study and determine the precise mechanism(s) behind the anti-emetic effects of SCL. We expect that SCL-10 may be utilized as an antiemetic treatment in a single dosage form or that it may function as a synergist with other traditional medicines.

A re-consideration of neural/receptor mechanisms in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: current scenario and future perspective.

The neural mechanisms and the receptors behind the course of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are well described and considered mechanistically multifactorial, whereas the neurobiology of nausea is not completely understood yet. Some of the anti-neoplastic medications like cisplatin result in biphasic vomiting response. The acute phase of vomiting is triggered mainly via the release of serotonin from the enterochromaffin (EC) cells in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) and results in stimulation of dorsal vagal complex (DVC) of the vomiting center and the vomiting is initiated by downward communication to the gut via vagal efferents. Agonism of 5HT3 receptors is majorly involved in the mediation of the acute phase. Therefore, antagonists at 5HT3 receptors are effective in the management of acute-phase vomiting episodes. Likewise, Dopamine type 2 (D2) receptors, dopamine neurotransmitter, Muscarinic receptors (M3), GLP1 receptors, and histaminergic receptors (H1) are also implicated in the vomiting act as well. In continuation, Cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) receptors are also recommended and included in the guidelines as agonism of presynaptically located CB1 receptors inhibits the release of excitatory neurotransmitters responsible for vomiting initiation. The delayed phase involves the release of "Substance P" in the gut and results in the stimulation of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptors centrally in the area postrema (AP) and nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS), subsequently the vomiting response. The current understanding is the existence of overlapping mechanisms of neurotransmitters, serotonin, dopamine, and substance P throughout the time course of CINV. Furthermore, the emetic neurotransmitters are released via calcium ion (Ca++)-dependent mechanisms, implicating the molecular targets of intracellular Ca++ signaling in emetic circuitry. The current review entails the neurobiology of nausea and vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapeutic agents and the recent approaches in the management.

Emesis to trichothecene deoxynivalenol and its congeners correspond to secretion of peptide YY and 5-HT.

The type B trichothecenes pollute food crops and have been associated to alimentary toxicosis resulted in emetic reaction in human and animal. This group of mycotoxins consists deoxynivalenol (DON) and four structurally related congeners: 3-acetyl-deoxynivalenol (3-ADON), 15-acetyl deoxynivalenol (15-ADON), nivalenol (NIV) and 4-acetyl-nivalenol (fusarenon X, FX). While emesis induced by intraperitoneally dosed to DON in the mink has been related to plasma up-grading of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) and neurotransmitters peptide YY (PYY), the impact of oral dosing with DON or its four congeners on secretion of these chemical substances have not been established. The aim of this work was to contraste emetic influence to type B trichothecene mycotoxins by orally dosing and involve these influence to PYY and 5-HT. All five toxins attracted marked emetic reaction that are relevant to elevated PYY and 5-HT. The reduction in vomiting induced by the five toxins and PYY was due to blocking of the neuropeptide Y2 receptor. The inhibition of the induced vomiting response by 5-HT and all five toxins is regulated by the 5-HT3 receptor inhibitor granisetron. In a word, our results indicate that PYY and 5-HT take a key role in the emetic reaction evoked by type B trichothecenes.

Dimethyl sulfoxide favors the emetic efficacy of lycorine in beagle dogs - a novel strategy for the treatment of poisoning.

Poisoning in small animals represents an ongoing hazard and therapeutic problem in veterinary medicine. Therapeutic induction of emesis in time enables a fast elimination of a toxic compound resulting in a shortened course of poisoning and a higher safety level thereafter, which decisively improves prognosis and treatment. Lycorine is a reliable emetic drug in beagle dogs without serious side effects thought to be more beneficial in tolerability and efficacy than the rarely used apomorphine. Therefore, this study investigates efficacy and tolerability of differently composed potential drug formulations of lycorine hydrochloride for s.c. administration in dogs as an emetic principle. By emesis response analysis four dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)-based active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) formulations were favored. Two of them (F5 and F6) qualified for further drug development. Both formulations ensure a safe pharmacologically induced emesis within about 30 min after injection, suitable for use as an in time decontaminant in acute poisoning of dogs. DMSO-based formulations were well tolerated and offer a novel promising strategy for treatment of poisoning.

Pica caused by emetic drugs in laboratory rats with kaolin, gypsum, and lime as test substances.

Pica refers to eating nonfood substances. The pica behavior has been the focus of attention in physiological and pharmacological studies, because its consumption is a good marker of nausea in laboratory rats, which cannot vomit due to neuroanatomical reasons. Almost all pica studies with rats have used kaolin clay pellets as nonfood substances. The present study primarily aimed to explore an alternative (or more suitable) substance to kaolin for detection of nausea induced by emetic drugs. Two calcium compounds, gypsum and lime, were evaluated in this study. An injection of lithium chloride (LiCl) increased pica behavior not only in the rats given kaolin but also in the rats given gypsum, suggesting that gypsum consumption could be used as an indicator of nausea. However, its sensitivity was no greater than that of kaolin consumption. In addition, lime is not a useful marker for nausea because the size of pica was small in the LiCl-injected rats, and did not differ from the control in the cisplatin-injected rats. In short, the superiority of kaolin as a test substance for nausea could not be overturned. However, the fact that nauseous rats displayed pica behavior with gypsum and lime refutes the claim that aluminosilicate, the main component of kaolin, is the critical determinant of emetic-caused pica in laboratory rats.

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.

PURPOSE: The 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: NEPA 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. CONCLUSION: By 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.

[Prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting after medical cancer treatment : Guidelines on supportive treatment-Part II]. / Prophylaxe von Übelkeit und Erbrechen nach medikamentöser Tumortherapie : Leitlinien zur Supportivtherapie ­ Teil II.

The frequency and severity of nausea and/or vomiting in patients receiving anticancer drugs are influenced by numerous factors, e.g., by the specific therapeutic agent, the dosage, the schedule and the form of administration. They are also influenced by individual factors of the patients, e.g., young age, female gender, previous cancer treatment, low or no alcohol consumption, morning sickness, travel sickness and states of anxiety. The emetogenicity of parenteral and oral medications is classified into high, moderate and minimal. For prophylaxis of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), neurokinin­1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA), 5­hydroxytryptamine­3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3-RA), dexamethasone (DEX) and olanzapine (OLANZ) are used in combination. For moderate emetogenicity DEX and 5­HT3-RA are used together for prophylaxis of acute emesis and for low emetogenicity a monotherapy with 5­HT3-RA, DEX or metoclopramide is used. For minimal emetogenicity routine prophylaxis is not necessary. Standards are also prescribed for delayed emesis and oral anticancer medications. Guideline-conform prophylaxis is an indispensable component of medical oncological treatment.

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.

Certified nurse specialists in cancer nursing and prophylactic antiemetic prescription for chemotherapy patients.

PURPOSE: The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a common chemotherapy side effect, should be attempted by oncology nurses. Certified nurses could be certified nurse specialists in cancer nursing (CNSCNs), who have high-level graduate education, or certified nurses in cancer chemotherapy nursing (CNCCNs), who have short-term training. The relationship between these certifications and compliance with the CINV prevention guidelines has not been investigated. We aimed to evaluate the association between certified nurse staffing and prescription of prophylactic antiemetic drugs for chemotherapy patients with high emetic risk. METHODS: We used health service utilisation data for cancer patients diagnosed in 2016 from 474 hospitals nationwide in Japan and a list of certified nurses published by the Japanese Nurse Association. Patients receiving highly emetic chemotherapy were included. A multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression analysis was conducted to estimate the prescription of prophylactic antiemetic drugs associated with CNSCN and/or CNCCN staffing. RESULTS: Data of 46,306 patients were analysed. Overall, 68.4% and 94.0% of the patients received chemotherapy at hospitals with CNSCNs and CNCCNs, respectively. Small cell lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and oesophageal cancer were positively associated with the prescription of recommended antiemetic drugs. CNSCNs was significantly associated with the prescription of prophylactic antiemetic drugs, while CNCCNs was positively but non-significantly associated with antiemetic prescriptions. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to demonstrate that CNSCN placement was significantly associated with prescribing antiemetic drugs recommended by clinical guidelines. Patients are likely to receive appropriate supportive care with the proper placement of CNSCNs.

A retrospective study on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in highly/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: incidence and prescribing practice.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting (CINV) is a common and significant problem in oncology patients and rated as one of cancer chemotherapy's most distressing side effects. The objectives of this study are to describe the incidence of CINV in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-treated patients and the prescribing pattern of CINV prophylaxis. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional single-center study randomly collected data on demographics, CINV episodes, and prescribing patterns for adult oncology patients receiving intravenous highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC) between January and December 2019. RESULTS: A total of 419 randomly selected records of HEC/MEC recipients with 2388 total chemotherapy cycles were included. The mean age was 53.6 ± 12.6 years old. The majority was female (66%), Malay (54.4%), diagnosed with cancer stage IV (47.7%), and with no comorbidities (47%). All patients were prescribed with IV granisetron and dexamethasone before chemotherapy for acute prevention, whereas dexamethasone and metoclopramide were prescribed for delayed prevention. Aprepitant was not routinely prescribed for the prevention of CINV. CINV incidence was 57% in the studied population and 20% in the total cycle. This study found a significant association between CINV incidence with performance status and cisplatin-based chemotherapy (OR = 3.071, CI = 1.515-6.223, p = 0.002; OR = 4.587, CI = 1.739-12.099, p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: CINV incidence was rather high per patient but relatively low per cycle. Most patients were prescribed with dual regimen antiemetic prophylaxis. IMPACT: This study provides evidence that there was suboptimal use of recommended agents for CINV, and there is a clear need for further improvements in CINV management.

FLOT (a chemotherapy regimen for gastric/esophagogastric junction cancer): to be treated as a highly emetogenic regimen or a moderately emetogenic one? Comparison of the emetogenic potential of FLOT versus FOLFOX and TAC regimens.

PURPOSE: The current study aimed at investigating the efficacy of aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen in FLOT (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin + docetaxel) recipients as well as the emetogenic potential of FLOT regimen, through comparison of nausea and vomiting rates in a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, FLOT, and a highly emetogenic chemotherapy recipients. STUDY: Patients planned to receive one of FLOT, FOLFOX (fluorouracil + leucovorin + oxaliplatin/moderate-emetic risk), or TAC (docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide/high-emetic risk) regimens were recruited. All patients were treated with the same triple antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant. RESULTS: A total of 165 chemotherapy-naïve patients (52 FLOT recipients) were eligible to enter the study. At the end of day 5, "complete response" (primary efficacy endpoint) was achieved by 84.6%, 63.5%, and 61.5% of the FLOT-receiving patients in acute, delayed, and overall phases, respectively. A significant difference was seen among the odds of FLOT recipients and FOLFOX recipients concerning "complete response" achievement in delayed (p = 0.014) and overall (p = 0.017) phases, "no emesis" in delayed (p = 0.018) and overall (p = 0.010) phases, and also "complete protection" in acute (p = 0.023), delayed (p = 0.009), and overall (p = 0.006) phases; however, the difference between the odds of FLOT recipients and TAC recipients, in relation to achieving these endpoints, was insignificant. FLOT group showed significantly faster time-to-antiemetic regimen failure and time-to-first emetic episode in comparison with the FOLFOX group, which was insignificant in comparison with the TAC group. CONCLUSION: According to the findings, FLOT has to be considered as a high-emetic-risk regimen; provided that, as recommended by the antiemetic guidelines towards better management of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic regimens, executing clinical trials concerning the efficacy of continuing dexamethasone on days 2-4 in aprepitant-containing triple antiemetic regimen schedule is required.

Real-world emetic risk of chemotherapy and the corresponding antiemetic therapy in Japan: A study based on a nationwide database.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major concern of patients with cancer, leading to suboptimal treatment. AIM: This study assessed the emetic risk associated with intravenous and oral chemotherapy and the prophylactic antiemetic drugs by cancer type in a real-world setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the health services utilisation data for patients with cancer diagnosed in 2016. Patients aged at least 20 years at the time of diagnosis and who started their first course of chemotherapy were included. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was determined according to the cancer type and was classified based on clinical practice guidelines. The prescription of antiemetic drugs was assessed. Overall, 172 133 patients were evaluated, of whom 121 103 (70.4%) received intravenous chemotherapy. High-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) was prescribed in 46 458 (27.0%) patients. HEC was prescribed most for patients with oesophageal cancer (80.3%), followed by malignant lymphoma (60.2%) and breast cancer (53.8%). Moderate-emetic-risk chemotherapy (MEC) was prescribed in 60 528 (35.2%) patients and was mostly prescribed for small cell lung cancer (59.9%). Meanwhile, more than 50% of the chemotherapy prescribed for patients with gastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer was low-emetic-risk chemotherapy. HEC was accompanied by three-drug antiemetic prophylaxis in more than 90% of patients with small cell lung, non-small cell lung, breast, and oesophageal cancer, whereas only 13.5% of patients with malignant lymphoma were administered CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine sulphate, and prednisolone) with prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: The risk of CINV differs with cancer type. HEC was less prescribed compared with MEC. Most patients received the recommended anti-emetic prophylaxis.

Evaluation of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of apomorphine for induction of emesis in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the effectiveness and any adverse effects of apomorphine administered SC or IV for induction of emesis in dogs. ANIMALS: 42 client-owned dogs. PROCEDURES: Dogs for which emesis induction was deemed appropriate by the attending clinician were prospectively randomized to receive apomorphine (0.03 mg/kg [0.01 mg/lb]) either SC (n = 20) or IV (22). Data collected included whether emesis was successfully induced, time from drug administration to emesis, number of emetic events, and adverse events (eg, sedation, protracted vomiting, or other). RESULTS: Of the 20 dogs given apomorphine SC, 16 (80%) vomited. Of the 22 dogs given apomorphine IV, 18 (82%) vomited. With regard to route of administration, the number of dogs in which emesis was induced did not differ significantly. Median time to the first emetic event was 13.5 minutes (range, 3 to 32 minutes) in the SC treatment group and 2 minutes (range, 1 to 5 minutes) in the IV treatment group; the difference was significant. There was no significant difference in the number of emetic events or frequency of adverse events between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Apomorphine administered SC or IV reliably induced emesis in dogs. Compared with SC administration of apomorphine, the time from drug administration to emesis associated with IV administration was significantly shorter, a finding that has clinical importance.

Mechanisms of Nausea and Vomiting: Current Knowledge and Recent Advances in Intracellular Emetic Signaling Systems.

Nausea and vomiting are common gastrointestinal complaints that can be triggered by diverse emetic stimuli through central and/or peripheral nervous systems. Both nausea and vomiting are considered as defense mechanisms when threatening toxins/drugs/bacteria/viruses/fungi enter the body either via the enteral (e.g., the gastrointestinal tract) or parenteral routes, including the blood, skin, and respiratory systems. While vomiting is the act of forceful removal of gastrointestinal contents, nausea is believed to be a subjective sensation that is more difficult to study in nonhuman species. In this review, the authors discuss the anatomical structures, neurotransmitters/mediators, and corresponding receptors, as well as intracellular emetic signaling pathways involved in the processes of nausea and vomiting in diverse animal models as well as humans. While blockade of emetic receptors in the prevention of vomiting is fairly well understood, the potential of new classes of antiemetics altering postreceptor signal transduction mechanisms is currently evolving, which is also reviewed. Finally, future directions within the field will be discussed in terms of important questions that remain to be resolved and advances in technology that may help provide potential answers.

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.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aprepitant versus two dosages of olanzapine with ondansetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of aprepitant (APR) or 10 or 5 mg OLN (OLN10 or OLN5) plus ondansetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving high-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: Patients who received doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide or cisplatin were given intravenous ondansetron and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy and oral dexamethasone on days 2-4 and randomized 1:1:1 to receive APR125 on day 1 and APR80 on days 2-3 or OLN10 or OLN5 on days 1-4. Matched placebo controls were used. The primary endpoint was no nausea in ≤ 120 h. Secondary endpoints included CINV severity, complete response (CR) rate, adverse effects (AE), and quality of life. RESULTS: Of 141 patients, 104 received AC and 37 received cisplatin. The no-nausea rates were 33% (APR), 43.2% (OLN10; p = 0.24), and 37% (OLN5; p = 0.87). Grades 2-4 nausea were experienced by fewer patients for OLN10 than for APR (24-120 h, 8.7% vs. 27.7%, respectively; p = 0.02; overall period, 19.6% vs. 40.4%, respectively; p = 0.03). The median visual analog scale nausea score from 24 to 120 h was significantly lower for OLN10 (2.3) than for APR (1.2, p = 0.03). The degrees of vomiting, CR, and AE were similar between the APR and OLN10 groups. CINV was similar between the OLN5 and APR groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nausea was less severe for OLN10 than for APR in patients receiving HEC, but other measures were similar. CINV prevention efficacy was comparable between OLN5 and APR.