Enzo Ballatori

Consensus proposals for the prevention of acute and delayed vomiting and nausea following high-emetic-risk chemotherapy

This paper uses an evidence-based approach whenever possible to formulate recommendations, emphasizing the results of controlled trials concerning the best use of antiemetic agents. We address issues of dose, schedule, and route of administration of five selective 5-HT3 antagonists. We conclude that for each of these five drugs, there is a plateau in therapeutic efficacy above which further dose escalation does not improve outcome. Furthermore, for all classes of antiemetic agents, a single dose is as effective as multiple doses or a continuous infusion. The oral route is as efficacious as the intravenous route of administration, even with chemotherapy of high emetic risk. Selective antagonists of the type 3 serotonin receptor (5-HT3) in combination with dexamethasone and aprepitant are the standard of care for the prevention of emesis following chemotherapy of high emetic risk.

Predictive factors of delayed emesis in cisplatin-treated patients and antiemetic activity and tolerability of metoclopramide or dexamethasone : a randomized single-blind study

To prevent delayed emesis induced by cisplatin (mean dose 90 mg/m2), 120 consecutive patients were randomized to receive, in a 7-day crossover design, oral metoclopramide (20 mg q.i.d.), dexamethasone (1 mg q.i.d.) or placebo (two tablets q.i.d.) starting 24 hours after the end of chemotherapy. Complete protection from nausea, but not from vomiting. was significantly increased by both dexamethasone and metoclopramide with respect to placebo. Important prognostic factors favoring the appearance of delayed emesis were incomplete protection from vomiting during the first 24 hours after cisplatin, female gender, and highest cisplatin doses. Tolerability of both drugs was good. Larger and randomized controlled trials are necessary to identify better preventive treatment of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin.

Aprepitant Versus Dexamethasone for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Delayed Emesis in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Double-Blind Study

PURPOSE A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of acute or delayed emesis induced by chemotherapy containing anthracyclines plus cyclophosphamide in patients with breast cancer. The aim of this study was to verify whether dexamethasone is superior to aprepitant in preventing delayed emesis in patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS A randomized double-blind study comparing aprepitant versus dexamethasone was completed in chemotherapy-naive patients with breast cancer treated with anthracyclines plus cyclophosphamide. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg, dexamethasone 8 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On days 2 and 3, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 4 mg twice per day or aprepitant 80 mg once per day. Primary end point was rate of complete response (ie, no vomiting or rescue treatment) from days 2 to 5 after chemotherapy. RESULTS Of 580 enrolled patients, 551 were evaluable: 273 received dexamethasone, and 278 received aprepitant. Day 1 complete response rates were similar: 87.6% for dexamethasone and 84.9% for aprepitant (P < .39). From days 2 to 5, complete response rates were the same with both antiemetic prophylaxes (79.5%; P < 1.00), as were results of secondary end points (ie, complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < .24). Incidences of insomnia (2.9% v 0.4%; P < .02) and heartburn (8.1% v 3.6%; P < .03) were significantly greater with dexamethasone on days 2 to 5. CONCLUSION In patients with breast cancer treated with anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, dexamethasone was not superior to aprepitant but instead had similar efficacy and toxicity in preventing delayed emesis.

Emesis induced by low or minimal emetic risk chemotherapy

For patients treated with low or minimally emetogenic chemotherapy there is little evidence from clinical trials supporting the choice of a given antiemetic therapy or of any treatment at all. The panel recognized the necessity of considering the introduction into clinical practice of new agents in these categories, particularly oral cytotoxic agents and targeted biological agents and also the possibility of over-treatment with antiemetics. There was consensus among panel members regarding the recommended treatment for patients receiving chemotherapy agents with low and minimal emetic risk. Patients without a history of nausea and vomiting for whom minimally emetic risk chemotherapy is prescribed should not routinely receive antiemetic prophylaxis. A single agent such as a low-dose corticosteroid is suggested for patients receiving agents of low emetic risk. If nausea and vomiting occurs during subsequent cycles of chemotherapy, prophylaxis with a single agent such as a substituted benzamide, a corticosteroid, or a phenothiazine should be administered. Only patients with persistent nausea and vomiting despite treatment with these recommended agents should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in the following cycles.

Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ondansetron Versus Metoclopramide Regimens

SummaryIn a large double-blind study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Italy, 289 patients underwent 3 consecutive cycles of cisplatin chemotherapy. Antiemetic treatment with ondansetron plus dexamethasone was more efficacious and better tolerated, but also more expensive, than treatment with metoclopramide plus both dexamethasone and diphenhydramine. To evaluate the different costs of the 2 antiemetic regimens, we conducted a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. Direct costs of antiemetic therapy (acquisition cost of drugs, materials and time spent by nurses to prepare and administer therapies), cleanup after emesis, rescue medication and adverse events were evaluated.Antiemetic drug acquisition costs per patient were 5.23-fold higher for the ondansetron regimen than for the metoclopramide regimen. However, when the costs of materials and nursing time required to prepare and administer the antiemetic regimens were included, this ratio was 3.77. Furthermore, including the cost of emesis, rescue antiemetic treatments and medication used to treat adverse events, hospital costs per patient were 3.21-fold higher with the ondansetron regimen during the first cycle, 3.08-fold higher during second cycle and 2.89-fold higher during third cycle of chemotherapy.Complete protection from vomiting and from both vomiting and nausea with ondansetron occurred, respectively, in 78.7 and 69.1% of patients in the first cycle, 73.8 and 57.3% in the second cycle, and 74.2 and 58.1% in third cycle of chemotherapy. Corresponding figures for the metoclopramide regimen were 59.5 and 50.4%, 53.6 and 37.1%, and 46.8 and 27.3%, respectively. Thus, the cost per successfully treated (completely protected) patient was 2.43- and 2.34-fold higher, respectively, for ondansetron at the first cycle, 2.23- and 1.99-fold higher, respectively, at second cycle, and 1.82- and 1.36-fold higher, respectively, at third cycle.In conclusion, the study demonstrates that, while ondansetron has a greater acquisition cost than metoclopramide, the ondansetron regimen costs per successfully-treated patient substantially decrease when all direct hospital costs are taken into account.

A double-blind trial comparing antiemetic efficacy and toxicity of metoclopramide versus methylprednisolone versus domperidone in patients receiving doxorubicin chemotherapy alone or in combination with other antiblastic agents.

Nausea and vomiting are reported in ∼60% of neoplastic patients treated with doxorubicin used alone at doses ≥50 mg/m2 or in combination with other noncisplatin antiblastic agents. In a double-blind study we compared the efficacy and tolerability of metoclopramide (MTC) versus Domperidone (DMP) versus methylprednisolone (MP) administered intravenously (i.v.) to inpatients. Forty-four patients entered the trial. The three antiemetic regimens were found equally effective. A complete protection from vomiting/nausea was obtained in 14/11 (93.3%/73.3%) of patients treated with MTC, in 15/14 (100%/93%) of those treated with MP and in 11/11 (78.6%/78.6%) of those treated with DMP. Side effects were slight and not significantly different among the three regimens. In conclusion, i.v. MTC and MP (DMP is no longer available in i.v. formulation) as single agents are an adequate treatment for prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by doxorubicin alone or in combination with other noncisplatin antiblastic agents.

Aprepitant versus metoclopramide, both combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (r.a.), and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in the acute phase, and aprepitant + dexamethasone (A + D) in the delayed phase. The aim of this study was to verify if A + D is superior to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (M + D) in preventing delayed emesis in cancer patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS A randomized double-blind study comparing A + D versus M + D was completed in previously untreated cancer patients. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On day 2-4, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 8 mg plus aprepitant 80 mg once daily (days 2-3) or metoclopramide 20 mg four times daily plus dexamethasone 8 mg bid. Primary endpoint was rate of complete response (no vomiting, no rescue treatment) in day 2-5 after chemotherapy. RESULTS Due to difficulty in the accrual of patients, 303 of the 480 planned patients were enrolled, 284 were fully evaluable, 147 receiving A + D, 137 M + D. Day 1 results were similar in both arms. On day 2-5, complete response rate was not significantly different (80.3% with A + D versus 82.5% with M + D, P < 0.38, respectively), and all secondary endpoints were also similar (complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, and score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < 0.24). Adverse events incidence was not significantly different between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS In cancer patients submitted to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, A + D is not superior to M + D in preventing delayed emesis, and both treatments present similar toxicity. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER NCT00869310.BACKGROUND A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (r.a.), and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in the acute phase, and aprepitant + dexamethasone (A + D) in the delayed phase. The aim of this study was to verify if A + D is superior to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (M + D) in preventing delayed emesis in cancer patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS A randomized double-blind study comparing A + D versus M + D was completed in previously untreated cancer patients. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On day 2-4, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 8 mg plus aprepitant 80 mg once daily (days 2-3) or metoclopramide 20 mg four times daily plus dexamethasone 8 mg bid. Primary endpoint was rate of complete response (no vomiting, no rescue treatment) in day 2-5 after chemotherapy. RESULTS Due to difficulty in the accrual of patients, 303 of the 480 planned patients were enrolled, 284 were fully evaluable, 147 receiving A + D, 137M + D. Day 1 results were similar in both arms. On day 2-5, complete response rate was not significantly different (80.3% with A + D versus 82.5% with M + D, P < 0.38, respectively), and all secondary endpoints were also similar (complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, and score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < 0.24). Adverse events incidence was not significantly different between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS In cancer patients submitted to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, A + D is not superior to M + D in preventing delayed emesis, and both treatments present similar toxicity. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER NCT00869310.

Methodology of trials with antiemetics

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can today be controlled with the rdnew“ antiemetics or with their various combinations in a high percentage of patients. Despite this, for some subgroups of patients, certain chemotherapy regimens and some aspects of the phenomenon (delayed presentation), emesis remains a critical problem. Hence, there is the necessity for a continuous effort in the search for new drugs or better treatment modalities and the absolute requisite that these efforts be carried out according to a sound and verified trial methodology. Nausea and vomiting induced by antineoplastic agents are extremely variable phenomena, depending not only on the characteristics of chemotherapy regimens and of the patient population, but also on a subjective feeling generated by the impact of the care system on the patients individual situation. Therefore, precisely because of this high variability, large comparative trials should be carried out to ensure that the sample is sufficiently representative for the most efficacious antiemetic regimen to be detected. In this field, some of the main problems arising in all clinical trials have their own specificity, particularly the study design, whether completely randomized or cross-over, the follow-up and the importance of prognostic factors. Among these, age, gender and previous chemotherapy with experience of nausea and vomiting have been confirmed as important. In addition, some topics must clearly be highlighted: the definition of the response variables and the assessment of variability of the results obtained with the same antiemetic regimen from one cycle of chemotherapy to the next (i.e. persistence). The greater attention devoted today to delayed emesis raises some methodological questions: this paper suggests some possible solutions for a better evaluation of this phenomenon.

Off-label prescription of antineoplastic drugs: an Italian prospective, observational, multicenter survey

Aims and Background An appropriate use of drugs should follow the registered indications. Different reasons can induce oncologists to prescribe drugs off-label. The aim of this study was to describe incidence and characteristics of these prescriptions in Italy. Methods Patients submitted to chemotherapy in 15 Italian oncology centers were evaluated for two randomized non-consecutive days of two weeks in May 2006. Results The study enrolled 644 patients receiving 1,053 drugs. Overall, 199 of 1053 (18.9%) prescriptions were off-label. In 92 of 199 cases (46.2%), the drugs were used for a neoplasm for which they were not approved, but there was scientific evidence (one or more randomized clinical trials or more phase II studies published in a major oncology journal) justifying the prescription. In 27 cases (13.6%), the drugs were prescribed for a rare neoplasm (cisplatin and gemcitabine in mesothelioma). In 20/21 cases (10.1%/10.5%), drugs were used in association/alone in contrast with the approved use (capecitabine in association in colorectal cancer). In 28/11 cases (14.0%/5.6%), the drugs were used in lines of chemotherapy subsequent/previous to that approved. Conclusions Off-label use of antineoplastic drugs, in this observational survey, represents less than 20% of the prescriptions, and most of them are based on scientific evidence of efficacy.

Guidelines for the control of nausea and vomiting with chemotherapy of low or minimal emetic potential

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to update the guidelines for antiemetic therapy to be used with anticancer agents of low to minimal emetic potential.MethodsExperts from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) met in Perugia in 2009 to revise the MASCC antiemetic consensus guidelines. There is an increasing number of anticancer agents which are classified as being associated with a low or minimal risk of nausea and vomiting. However, the emetic potential of such agents and particularly those given as prolonged oral therapy is not well documented, and neither is the optimal antiemetic therapy.ResultsThe consensus is that patients receiving anticancer therapy of low emetic potential should receive single-agent antiemetic prophylaxis such as dexamethasone, 5 hydroxytryptamine3 (5HT3) receptor antagonists, or dopamine receptor antagonists. Those receiving anticancer therapy of minimal emetic potential and who have no prior history of nausea and vomiting should not receive antiemetic prophylaxis. Those who experience nausea and vomiting subsequently can receive single-agent dexamethasone, 5HT3 receptor antagonists, or dopamine receptor antagonists.ConclusionsMore data are needed on the emetic potential and the outcome of antiemetic treatment with agents likely to fall into the low or minimal emetic potential category.