UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstracts for References 123-126

of 'Prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults'

123
TI
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in acute leukemia and stem cell transplant patients: results of a multicenter, observational study.
AU
López-Jiménez J, Martín-Ballesteros E, Sureda A, Uralburu C, Lorenzo I, del Campo R, Fernández C, Calbacho M, García-Belmonte D, Fernández G
SO
Haematologica. 2006;91(1):84.
 
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and severity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in oncohematology in routine clinical practice, its impact on quality of life, and caregivers' perception of the extent of the problem.
DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational follow-up study including: (i) acute myeloid leukemia patients treated with moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy and (ii) hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, without reduced intensity conditioning. No exclusion criteria were applied. All patients received at least one 5-HT3 antagonist for emesis prophylaxis. Patients recorded emetic episodes and rated nausea daily. Quality of life was assessed through a validated functional living Index-Emesis questionnaire. A survey of caregivers' predictions of CINV was made and the predictions then compared with the observed CINV.
RESULTS: One hundred consecutive transplant and 77 acute myeloid leukemia patients were studied. Transplant conditioning was the most important risk factor for CINV: complete response occurred in only 20% of transplant patients (vs. 47% for leukemia patients). Among patients with emesis, the mean percentage of days with emesis and the mean (+/-SD) total number of emetic episodes were 61% and 9.4+/-8.9 (transplant recipients), and 53.6% and 6.2+/-7.3 (leukemia patients), respectively. CINV control was lower in the delayed than in the acute phase. Antiemetic rescue therapy was ineffective. CINV had a deleterious effect on quality of life, especially among transplant recipients. Caregivers underestimated the incidence of delayed nausea and emesis in the transplant setting.
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Despite 5-HT3 antagonist prophylaxis, CINV remains a significant problem in oncohematology, especially in the delayed phase and in transplant recipients.
AD
Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. jlopezj.hrc@salud.madrid.org
PMID
124
TI
Ondansetron versus chlorpromazine for preventing emesis in bone marrow transplant recipients: a double-blind randomized study.
AU
Bosi A, Guidi S, Messori A, Saccardi R, Lombardini L, Vannucchi AM, Fanci R, Rossi-Ferrini P
SO
J Chemother. 1993;5(3):191.
 
Ondansetron, a selective 5-HT3 antagonist, is known to be effective for preventing emesis induced by cisplatin and other antineoplastic agents. We undertook a randomized double-blind study in a series of bone marrow transplantation (BMT) recipients to assess the antiemetic efficacy and the safety of ondansetron in comparison with chlorpromazine, which was being used at our institution, as the standard antiemetic agent for the conditioning regimen. Forty patients submitted to BMT (21 autologous, 19 allogeneic) were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron (as a loading dose of 8 mg iv one hour before the beginning of the conditioning regimen followed by a continuous infusion of 1 mg per hour for the whole treatment period) or chlorpromazine 60 mg/m2/day given by continuous infusion for the same period (maximum 8 days). Twenty patients were assigned to ondansetron, while 20 were assigned to chlorpromazine. The response rate in terms of antiemetic efficacy and in nausea control was similar between the two treatment groups. On the contrary the two groups differed significantly in regard to side-effects: patients receiving ondansetron experienced significantly less sedation (p = 0.002), the absence of extrapyramidal reactions (p<0.001) and no need for dose reduction (p<0.001) as compared with patients treated with chlorpromazine.
AD
Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy.
PMID
125
TI
Granisetron in the prevention of vomiting induced by conditioning for stem cell transplantation: a prospective randomized study.
AU
Okamoto S, Takahashi S, Tanosaki R, Sakamaki H, Onozawa Y, Oh H, Miyawaki S, Kimura Y, Toyama K, Ikeda Y, Asano S
SO
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996;17(5):679.
 
We conducted a prospective randomized study to compare granisetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist with standard anti-emetics (control group) consisting mainly of metoclopramide, in the prophylaxis of emesis induced by conditioning prior to stem cell transplantation. Fifty-eight patients were evaluable for analysis. The number of emetic episodes expressed in terms of patient-days was significantly lower in the granisetron group than in the control group (P<0.001). During the first 24 h of conditioning, 27 of the 31 patients (87.1%) in the granisetron group achieved control of emesis with less than three emetic episodes (major<or = ) a day compared with 37.0% in the control group (P<0.001). The same degree of emesis control was maintained throughout the conditioning period in 51.% of patients in the granisetron group compared with 0% in the control group (P<0.001). Adverse reactions were observed in 11.4% of patients in the granisetron group and in 25.9% in the control group. None of the events were serious. Based on these data, we conclude that granisetron is superior to standard antiemetics in protecting against the vomiting induced by conditioning for stem cell transplantation.
AD
Department of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
PMID
126
TI
Randomized, double-blind comparison of a prochlorperazine-based versus a metoclopramide-based antiemetic regimen in patients undergoing autologous bone marrow transplantation.
AU
Gilbert CJ, Ohly KV, Rosner G, Peters WP
SO
Cancer. 1995;76(11):2330.
 
BACKGROUND: Highly emetogenic combination alkylator therapy is routinely used in autologous bone marrow transplantation for treatment of eligible patients with solid tumors. Antiemetic therapy remains less than optimal in this setting.
METHODS: One hundred twenty-six patients with cancer receiving high dose cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, and carmustine with autologous bone marrow support were randomized to receive one of four double-blinded antiemetic regimens: 4-day continuous infusion prochlorperazine (6 mg/m2 intravenous [i.v.]loading dose followed by 1.5 mg/m2/hour) or metoclopramide (80 mg/m2 iv loading dose followed by 20 mg/m2/hr) each with either dronabinol 5 mg/m2 or placebo capsules for two doses before carmustine on the last day of chemotherapy. All subjects received scheduled lorazepam and diphenhydramine throughout the 4-day study period. Efficacy was measured by the Emetic Process Rating Scale and the Rhodes Index of Nausea and Vomiting (INV) Form 2.
RESULTS: One hundred six patients completed the study and were fully evaluable. The median number of emeticepisodes on the metoclopramide study arm were: 1 (0-7, day -6), 1 (0-6, day -5), 2 (0-9, day -4), and 2 (0-10, with dronabinol day -3) or 2 (0-7, no dronabinol day -3) and on the prochlorperazine study arm were: 4 (0-12, day -6), 0 (0-8, day -5), 0 (0-12, day -4) and 2.5 (0-9, with dronabinol day -3) or 2 (0-12, no dronabinol day -3). Metoclopramide was significantly better on the first day of therapy (day -6, P<.002) and prochlorperazine was significantly better on the third day of therapy (day -4, P<0.002). There was no significant difference among any of the four arms on the last day of chemotherapy (day -3), or when the median number of emetic episodes over the total study period were compared. The patients' assessment of nausea, vomiting, and retching on the INV Form 2 was consistent with the observer ratings. Toxicities requiring dose reduction or discontinuation of antiemetic drugs included diarrhea, cardiac arrhythmias, sedation, anxiety, and akathisia.
CONCLUSIONS: Both metoclopramide and prochlorperazine in combination with lorazepam and diphenhydramine offer good control of nausea and vomiting although the sedation and low risk for cardiac toxicity limit the regimen to an inpatient setting with close monitoring. No regimen was clearly superior during the entire treatment period but prochlorperazine offered more consistent control after the first day.
AD
Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
PMID