Rudolph M. Navari

REDUCTION OF CISPLATIN-INDUCED EMESIS BY A SELECTIVE NEUROKININ-1-RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST

BACKGROUND The localization of substance P in brain-stem regions associated with vomiting, and the results of studies in ferrets, led us to postulate that a neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist would be an antiemetic in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy. METHODS In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 159 patients who had not previously received cisplatin, we evaluated the prevention of acute emesis (occurring within 24 hours) and delayed emesis (on days 2 to 5) after a single dose of cisplatin therapy (70 mg or more per square meter of body-surface area). Before receiving cisplatin, all the patients received granisetron (10 microg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally). The patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatments in addition to granisetron and dexamethasone: 400 mg of an oral trisubstituted morpholine acetal (also known as L-754,030) before cisplatin and 300 mg on days 2 to 5 (group 1), 400 mg of L-754,030 before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 2), or placebo before cisplatin and placebo on days 2 to 5 (group 3). Additional medication was available at any time to treat occurrences of vomiting or nausea. RESULTS In the acute-emesis phase, 93 percent of the patients in groups 1 and 2 combined and 67 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001). In the delayed-emesis phase, 82 percent of the patients in group 1, 78 percent of those in group 2, and 33 percent of those in group 3 had no vomiting (P<0.001 for the comparison between group 1 or 2 and group 3). The median nausea score in the delayed-emesis phase was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 3 (P=0.003). No serious adverse events were attributed to L-754,030. CONCLUSIONS The neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist L-754,030 prevents delayed emesis after treatment with cisplatin. Moreover, combining L-754,030 with granisetron plus dexamethasone improves the prevention of acute emesis.

Olanzapine versus aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine (OLN) and aprepitant (APR) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS A phase III trial was performed in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m(2) or cyclophosphamide ≥ 500 mg/m(2) and doxorubicin ≥ 50 mg/m(2), comparing OLN to APR in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX). The OLN, PAL, DEX (OPD) regimen was 10 mg of oral OLN, 0.25 mg of IV PAL, and 20 mg of IV DEX prechemotherapy, day 1, and 10 mg/day of oral OLN alone on days 2-4 postchemotherapy. The APR, PAL, DEX (APD) regimen was 125 mg of oral APR, 0.25 mg of IV PAL, and 12 mg of IV DEX, day 1, and 80 mg of oral APR, days 2 and 3, and 4 mg of DEX BID, days 2-4. Two hundred fifty-one patients consented to the protocol and were randomized. Two hundred forty-one patients were evaluable. RESULTS Complete response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue) was 97% for the acute period (24 hours postchemotherapy), 77% for the delayed period (days 2-5 postchemotherapy), and 77% for the overall period (0-120 hours) for 121 patients receiving the OPD regimen. CR was 87% for the acute period, 73% for the delayed period, and 73% for the overall period in 120 patients receiving the APD regimen. Patients without nausea (0, scale 0-10, MD Anderson Symptom Inventory) were OPD: 87% acute, 69% delayed, and 69% overall; APD: 87% acute, 38% delayed, and 38% overall. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. CR and control of nausea in subsequent chemotherapy cycles were equal to or greater than cycle 1 for both regimens. OPD was comparable to APD in the control of CINV. Nausea was better controlled with OPD. DISCUSSION In this study, OLN combined with a single dose of DEX and a single dose of PAL was very effective at controlling acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. CR rates were not significantly different from a similar group of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and an antiemetic regimen consisting of APR, PAL, and DEX.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis by the selective neurokinin-1 antagonists, L-758,298 and MK-869 - A randomized controlled trial.

Recent studies have suggested that antiemetic therapy with a triple combination of the neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist MK‐869, a serotonin (5‐HT3) antagonist, and dexamethasone provides enhanced control of cisplatin‐induced emesis compared with standard therapy regimens. The authors compared the antiemetic activity of a dual combination of MK‐869 and dexamethasone with that of a standard dual combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone to characterize further the efficacy and tolerability profile of MK‐869.

Comparative clinical trial of granisetron and ondansetron in the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis. The Granisetron Study Group.

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and safety of granisetron and ondansetron, serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists shown to be effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a double-blind, randomized, stratified, parallel-group study, the efficacy and safety of granisetron and ondansetron were compared in 987 chemotherapy-naive patients who received cisplatin in doses > or = 60 mg/m2. Granisetron was administered as a single dose of 10 or 40 micrograms/kg before the start of chemotherapy. Ondansetron was administered in doses of 0.15 mg/kg before and 4 and 8 hours after the start of chemotherapy. The three treatment groups were well-matched with respect to demographic characteristics and the dose of cisplatin administered. RESULTS For all evaluations, single doses of granisetron 10 or 40 micrograms/kg were as effective as three 0.15-mg/kg doses of ondansetron. Total control (no vomiting, no retching, no nausea, and no use of rescue) was attained by 38%, 41%, and 39% of all patients who received granisetron 10 microgram/kg, granisetron 40 micrograms/kg, and ondansetron, respectively. No vomiting or retching and no use of rescue antiemetics were reported in 47%, 48%, and 51% of patients who received granisetron 10 micrograms/kg, granisetron 40 micrograms/kg, and ondansetron, respectively; no nausea and no use of rescue antiemetics were reported in 39%, 42%, and 40% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION All three treatment regimens were well-tolerated. The results of this study indicate that a single dose of granisetron 10 or 40 micrograms/kg is as effective as three doses of ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin chemotherapy.

Phase III double-blind comparison of dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron and an evaluation of the additive role of dexamethasone in the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy of dolasetron and ondansetron in controlling nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours; to evaluate the efficacy when dexamethasone is added to either drug in the first 24 hours; and to extend these comparisons over 7 days in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized study with six parallel arms that used a 2 x 2 factorial design in chemotherapy-naive patients. In arm 1, dolasetron (2.4 mg/kg) was given intravenously (I.V.) prechemotherapy, followed 24 hours later by oral dolasetron (200 mg once daily) for 6 days. Arms 2 and 3 consisted of dolasetron and dexamethasone 8 mg I.V., followed 24 hours later by oral dexamethasone (8 mg once daily) in one arm, and oral dexamethasone and dolasetron in the other, also for 6 days. In arms 4, 5, and 6, ondansetron (32 mg I.V. or 8 mg orally twice daily) was administered in a similar manner to arms 1, 2, and 3 before and 24 hours after chemotherapy. Mean nausea severity (MNS) was assessed on a visual analog scale (VAS) in a daily diary. RESULTS Of 703 patients enrolled, 696 were eligible. There were 343 dolasetron- and 353 ondansetron-treated patients; 57% of dolasetron-treated patients had complete protection in the first 24 hours versus 67% of patients who received ondansetron (P = .013). MNS was also more pronounced on the dolasetron arm (P = .051). Sixty-seven percent of patients who received added dexamethasone in the first 24 hours had complete protection, compared with 55% without dexamethasone (P < .001). MNS was significantly reduced with the addition of dexamethasone (P < .001). At 7 days, dolasetron and ondansetron had equivalent complete protection rates (36% and 39%, respectively). With the addition of dexamethasone, 48% of patients compared with 28% had complete protection (P < .001). MNS was significantly improved with added dexamethasone (P < .001). CONCLUSION At the doses used, dolasetron was significantly less effective than ondansetron at controlling nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, but there was no demonstrable difference between both drugs over 7 days. The addition of dexamethasone significantly improved the efficacy of both drugs in the first 24 hours and over 7 days.

Stratified, randomized, double-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron administered as a multiple-dose regimen versus two single-dose regimens in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE This study compares the efficacy and safety of two single-dose regimens with the approved three-dose regimen of ondansetron in the prevention of cisplatin-induced emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS This multicenter study was a stratified, randomized, double-blind, and parallel group design. Chemotherapy-naive inpatients were randomized to receive intravenous (IV) ondansetron (Zofran; Glaxo Inc, Research Triangle Park, NC) 0.15 mg/kg times three doses, every 4 hours or a single 8-mg or 32-mg dose followed by two saline doses that began 30 minutes before cisplatin administration. Cisplatin (high-dose > or = 100 mg/m2 or medium-dose 50 to 70 mg/m2) was given as a single infusion (< or = 3 hours). Patients were monitored for emetic episodes, adverse events, and laboratory safety parameters for 24 hours after cisplatin administration. RESULTS A total of 699 patients (359 high-dose, 340 medium-dose) were enrolled. Of these, 618 were assessable for efficacy (15 ineligible, 66 protocol deviations). The 32-mg dose was superior to the 8-mg single dose with regard to total number of emetic episodes (high-dose, P = .015; medium-dose, P < .001), complete response (no emetic episodes: high-dose, 48% v 35%; P = .048; medium-dose, 73% v 50%; P = .001) and failure rate (> 5 emetic episodes, withdrawn or rescued: high-dose, 20% v 34%; P = .018; medium-dose, 9% v 23%; P = .005). The 32-mg single dose was also superior to the 0.15 mg/kg times three dose regimen with regard to total number of emetic episodes (medium-dose, P = .033) and failure rate (high-dose, 20% v 36%; P = .009; medium-dose, 9% v 22%; P = .011). Ondansetron was well tolerated. The most common adverse event was headache. An approximate 10-fold increase in the incidence of clinically significant transaminase elevations was observed in the high-dose versus medium-dose cisplatin strata (aspartate aminotransferase [AST], 6.5% v 0.7%; serum alanine aminotransferase [ALT], 5.0% v 0.3%). CONCLUSION A 32-mg single dose of ondansetron is more effective than a single 8-mg dose and is at least as effective as the standard regimen of 0.15 mg/kg times three doses in the prevention of cisplatin-induced acute emesis.

Electrocardiographic and Cardiovascular Effects of the 5-Hydroxytryptamine3 Receptor Antagonists

OBJECTIVE: To review the electrocardiographic (ECG) and cardiovascular effects of 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists preclinically, in healthy volunteers, and in patients undergoing chemotherapy or surgery. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search was performed of clinical trials and preclinical data published between 1963 and December 2002 assessing the ECG and cardiovascular effects of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, supplemented with reviews and secondary sources. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All of the articles identified were evaluated and all information deemed relevant was included in this review. DATA SYNTHESIS: There are no clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety among the available 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting. As a class, they have well-defined electrophysiologic activity. Changes in ECG parameters (PR, QRS, QT, QTc, JT intervals) are small, reversible, clinically insignificant, and independent of the patient population studied, and patients are asymptomatic during these changes. ECG changes are most prominent 1–2 hours after a dose of dolasetron, ondansetron, and granisetron and return to baseline within 24 hours. Clinically important adverse cardiovascular events associated with these changes are rare. No serious cardiac events (including torsade de pointes) arising from ECG interval changes have been attributed to 5-HT3 receptor antagonist use. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical data demonstrate that ECG interval changes are a class effect of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Theoretical concern regarding cardiovascular adverse events with these agents is not supported by clinical experience. The significant benefits of these agents outweigh the theoretical small risk of meaningful cardiovascular events.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting : focus on newer agents and new uses for older agents.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. The use of a combination of a serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and a neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist has significantly improved the control of acute and delayed emesis in single-day chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a different half-life, a different binding capacity and a different mechanism of action than the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists appears to be the most effective agent in its class. Aprepitant, the first and only agent clinically available in the NK1 receptor antagonist drug class has been used effectively as an additive agent to the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to control CINV. Rolapitant and netupitant are other NK1 receptor antagonists that are currently in phase III clinical trials. Despite the control of emesis, nausea has not been well controlled by current agents. Olanzapine, a US-FDA approved antipsychotic, has emerged in recent trials as an effective preventative agent for CINV, as well as a very effective agent for the treatment of breakthrough emesis and nausea. Clinical trials using gabapentin, cannabinoids and ginger have not been definitive regarding their efficacy in the prevention of CINV. Additional studies are necessary for the control of nausea and for the control of CINV in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Prophylaxis of infection in patients with aplastic anemia receiving allogeneic marrow transplants

One hundred one patients with severe aplastic anemia underwent allogeneic marrow transplantation and received one of three forms of infection prophylaxis: oral nonabsorbable antibiotics and isolation and decontamination in a laminar airflow room (36 patients); prophylactic granulocyte transfusions from a single family member donor (33 patients); or conventional treatment in single rooms with hand-washing and mask precautions (31 patients). During the period of granulocytopenia, patients in the laminar airflow rooms acquired fewer infections than either of the other groups, but this difference was statistically significant only when compared with the group receiving conventional treatment. Patients in the laminar airflow rooms had significantly fewer infections after engraftment as compared with the other two groups. Incidence of interstitial pneumonia and graft rejection was not different among the three groups. Acute graft-versus-host disease occurred later (Day 47) in the group in the laminar airflow rooms as compared with the group receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions (Day 23) or the group receiving conventional treatment (Day 20). The incidence of grades II to IV acute graft-versus-host disease was less in the patients in the laminar airflow rooms but only reached borderline significance (p = 0.08) when compared with the conventionally treated patients. The survival at Day 100 was 92 percent for the group in the laminar airflow rooms, 79 percent for the group receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions, and 64 percent for the group receiving conventional treatment.

Efficacy and safety of granisetron, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by high-dose cisplatin.

PURPOSE To assess the antiemetic effects and safety profile of four different doses of granisetron (Kytril; SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia, PA) when administered as a single intravenous (IV) dose for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred eighty-four chemotherapy-naive patients receiving high-dose cisplatin (81 to 120 mg/m2) were randomized to receive one of four granisetron doses (5, 10, 20, or 40 micrograms/kg) administered before chemotherapy. Patients were observed on an inpatient basis for 18 to 24 hours, and vital signs, nausea, vomiting, retching, and appetite were assessed. Safety analyses included incidence of adverse experiences and laboratory parameter changes. RESULTS After granisetron doses of 5, 10, 20, and 40 micrograms/kg, a major response (< or = two vomiting or retching episodes, and no antiemetic rescue) was recorded in 23%, 57%, 58%, and 60% of patients, respectively, and a complete response (no vomiting or retching, and no antiemetic rescue) in 18%, 41%, 40%, and 47% of patients, respectively. There was a statistically longer time to first episode of nausea (P = .0015) and vomiting (P = .0001), and fewer patients were administered additional antiemetic medication in the 10-micrograms/kg dosing groups than in the 5-micrograms/kg dosing group. As granisetron dose increased, appetite return increased (P = .040). Headache was the most frequently reported adverse event (20%). CONCLUSION A single 10-, 20-, or 40-micrograms/kg dose of granisetron was effective in controlling vomiting in 57% to 60% of patients who received cisplatin at doses greater than 81 mg/m2 and totally prevented vomiting in 40% to 47% of patients. There were no statistically significant differences in efficacy between the 10-micrograms/kg dose and the 20- and 40-micrograms/kg doses. Granisetron was well tolerated at all doses.