Low-dose olanzapine, sedation and chemotherapy-induced nausea & vomiting: a prospective randomized controlled study

Aims: Comparison of efficacy, safety and sedation between two doses of olanzapine in the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Patients & methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study was conducted, enrolling 68 patients receiving a single-day cycle of high and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received either of olanzapine 5 mg or 10 mg from day 1 through 3 in addition to ondansetron and dexamethasone. Control of CINV, nausea, sedation, quality of life (QoL) and adverse events were compared. Results: Nausea, emesis control and improvement of QoL were similar in both groups. Sedation severity was 133% higher with 10 mg olanzapine. Conclusions: Lower dose olanzapine is effective to control CINV with significantly reduced sedation.

Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients: Do We Need to Revisit Guidelines?

Purpose The objective of this study was to assess the proportion of patients developing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after receiving chemotherapy for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, despite receiving antiemetic prophylaxis (AEP) as per the standard guidelines. Patients and Methods Between April 2019 and March 2020, all patients planned for chemotherapy were eligible for enrolment in the study. The primary endpoint of the study was the assessment of complete response (CR) rates. Results Overall, 1,276 consecutive patients were screened for this study, while 738 patients fulfilling the eligibility criteria were included. A total of 23.2% of the whole cohort failed to achieve CR. Also, 28.2, 16.9, and 16.6% of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC), and high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), respectively, failed to achieve CR. The differences in failure to achieve CR was statistically significant between MEC and HEC (p < 0.001) groups. Among MEC group, there was no difference between those who received oxaliplatin (27.8%) versus nonoxaliplatin regimens (25.8%) in terms of failure rates (p = 0.613). Conclusion Approximately one-fourth of patients failed to achieve a complete response from CINV in GI cancers despite using guideline-based AEP. Patients receiving MEC had the highest failure rates suggesting a need to improve AEP in these patients.

Single-dose fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a subgroup analysis from a randomized clinical trial of response in subjects by cancer type

Background Results from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, parallel-group trial evaluating fosaprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) found that a single-day, triple-antiemetic fosaprepitant regimen resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving a complete response (CR; no vomiting or rescue medication use) in the delayed phase (25–120 h after chemotherapy initiation), compared with a 3-day control regimen (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01594749). As the risk for CINV is dependent on chemotherapy regimen and generally guided by tumor type, this post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of this regimen by cancer subpopulations (gastrointestinal [GI] or colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancers). Methods Subjects with confirmed cancer who were naive to highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC) and were scheduled to receive intravenous (IV) anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)–based MEC on the first day of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ondansetron and oral dexamethasone plus either a single IV dose of fosaprepitant 150 mg (fosaprepitant regimen) or placebo (control regimen). The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects achieving CR in the delayed phase. CR rates in the overall and acute phases (0–120 h and 0–24 h after MEC initiation, respectively) were assessed as secondary end points. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Results CR rates in the delayed phase favored the fosaprepitant regimen over the control regimen across the GI/colorectal, lung, breast, and gynecologic cancer subgroups (range, 6.2–22%); similar findings were observed for CR in the overall phase. CR in the acute phase was high for all groups (≥87%). The fosaprepitant regimen was well tolerated in all cancer subgroups. Conclusions This post hoc analysis indicated that a single-day fosaprepitant regimen was effective in preventing CINV in patients receiving MEC, regardless of cancer type. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT01594749, registered May 9, 2012.

Comparison of two different intravenous serotonin antagonists used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in patients treated with moderately emetogenic risk regimens: A retrospective analysis from a large academic medical center

Introduction Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be a serious and debilitating adverse effect that is highly feared by cancer patients. For patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens at our institution in the ambulatory infusion center, palonosetron was selected as the preferred serotonin (5-HT3) antagonist for CINV prophylaxis per the 2016 NCCN Guidelines, when a neurokinin1 antagonist was not included in the prophylactic regimen. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone and palonosetron versus granisetron for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Methods This study is an Institutional Review Board-approved, single-center retrospective review of electronic health records including patients who received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens with CINV prophylaxis with dexamethasone and either palonosetron or granisetron. Results A total of 268 eligible patients were included in the study. Eighty-eight patients received palonosetron and 180 patients received granisetron as their 5-HT3 receptor antagonist between October 31, 2014 and October 31, 2016. There were no statistically significant differences between the two antiemetic groups for the primary outcome of presence of any change in day 1 intravenous prophylactic antiemetics. Nine (10.23%) palonosetron patients and 15 (8.33%) granisetron patients required a change in their day 1 intravenous prophylactic antiemetics ( P = 0.610). Conclusions Despite palonosetron’s better efficacy, longer half-life, and higher binding affinity, the results of this retrospective review demonstrates that the choice of serotonin antagonist, palonosetron or granisetron, did not result in a change in day 1 intravenous prophylactic antiemetics or antiemetic outpatient medications for patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.