About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Recent studies suggested that olanzapine, together with dexamethasone and serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), is effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). This regimen is particularly useful in Southeast Asia (SEA) countries where resources are limited. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating olanzapine into standard antiemetic regimens for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC among SEA countries.

Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.

Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries.

The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.

The purpose of this multicenter randomized, open-label, parallel-group study was to assess whether the addition of low-dose dexamethasone to ondansetron results in improved control of chemotherapy-induced emesis in patients undergoing first-line chemotherapy with high-dose epirubicin.

Patients were randomized to receive either 24 mg of ondansetron or 24 mg of ondansetron plus 8 mg of dexamethasone administered as an intravenous infusion 30 minutes prior to administration of chemotherapy. Both groups of patients received 8 mg of ondansetron given orally from day 2 to 5 two times daily. Fifty-three patients received ondansetron and 50 received ondansetron plus dexamethasone. The patients recorded nausea and the number of vomits and retches daily on diary cards.

Significantly more patients in the ondansetron plus dexamethasone group experienced neither vomiting nor retching during the first day of the first course of chemotherapy compared to those receiving ondansetron alone (79.6% vs 53.8%, P = 0.0062). Furthermore, there was a trend in favor of ondansetron plus dexamethasone in the control of nausea. There was no statistically significant difference between ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron alone in protecting patients from emesis between days 2 and 5 of the first course of chemotherapy (66.7% vs 62.7%, P = 0.68). This was probably due to the small sample size. Ondansetron was well tolerated, with 15 patients (15%) reporting adverse events such as headache or constipation.

It appears that ondansetron given intravenously in combination with dexamethasone is more effective than ondansetron alone in the control of acute emesis in patients undergoing their first course of chemotherapy with high-dose epirubicin. No difference between the regimens was found with regard to nausea and delayed emesis control.

In this update of our 2005 document, we used an evidence-based approach whenever possible to formulate recommendations, emphasizing the results of controlled trials concerning the best use of antiemetic agents for the prevention of emesis and nausea following anticancer chemotherapies of high emetic risk. A three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant beginning before chemotherapy and continuing for up to 4 days remains the standard of care. We address issues of dose, schedule, and route of administration of five selective 5-HT(3) receptor 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. In trials designed to prove the equivalence of palonosetron to ondansetron and granisetron, palonosetron proved superior in emesis prevention, while adverse effects were comparable. 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.

Serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs) are used to control chemotherapy-induced emesis. Although they have the same general mechanism of action (blockade of serotonin receptors), they have different chemical structures and may have different effects.

To compare efficacy of different serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs) in the control of acute and delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

We searched CENTRAL, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane PaPaS Group, PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. Our most recent search was in March 2009.

Randomised trials comparing 5-HT(3) RAs in an adult cancer population.

We extracted information from the included studies on the control of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting, either as a single or a combined outcome. Where appropriate, we combined the results of similar trials. We carried out sensitivity and subgroup analyses to test the robustness of our findings.

We included 16 randomised trials (7808 participants). Nine of the trials compared granisetron versus ondansetron. No other drug comparison was studied in more than one trial. The meta-analyses of the granisetron versus ondansetron trials found similar results for the two drugs on acute vomiting (eight trials, 4256 participants, odds ratio (OR) 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02), acute nausea (seven trials, 4160 participants, OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10), delayed vomiting (three trials, 1119 participants, OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34) and delayed nausea (two trials, 1024 participants, OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.24). Granisetron and ondansetron showed similar effects on headache and diarrhoea, with the possible exception of less constipation associated with ondansetron.One study of 1114 participants comparing palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone showed superiority of palonosetron in controlling delayed vomiting (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.85) and delayed nausea (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.10). Complete response for delayed nausea and vomiting was also in favour of the combination palonosetron and dexamethasone (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.07).

Ondansetron and granisetron appear to be equivalent drugs for the prevention of acute and delayed emesis following the use of highly emetogenic chemotherapy.According to one single trial the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone was superior to granisetron and dexamethasone in controlling delayed emesis. However, more evidence is needed before palonosetron could become the candidate 5-HT(3) RA for the control of delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

The knowledge of the importance, the physiopathological mechanisms, and the management of the chemotherapy-induced emesis has increased exponentially during the last 20 years. High-dosage metoclopramide (MCP) therapy has been introduced in the eighties and serotonine type-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) have been used since the late eighties and early nineties. Due to both classes of substances the results of the antiemetic therapies have improved drastically. After 20 years of intensive clinical research it seems to be appropriate to come to an intermediate conclusion.

With the aid of an overview and a new analysis of the literature published on this topic so far, the current state of research is shown (including the fields in which further improvement will be necessary), and suggestions are made, wherever it seemed possible, to attain the "gold standard" in antiemetic therapy.

In connection with all highly or very highly emetogenic chemotherapies, an antiemetic prophylaxis should be initiated on the day of therapy, especially when using platinum or most of the cyclophosphamide-based regimes for cancer treatment. The recommended prophylaxis consists of a combination of 5-HT(3) antagonists with a corticosteroid. To combat the so-called delayed emesis on the days following therapy, all patients should undergo an oral corticoid therapy, possibly in combination with MCP (especially platinum-therapy patients), less frequently with 5-HT(3) antagonists. With these means of prophylaxis emesis can be prevented/avoided completely in most patients, and nausea can at least be reduced. It is sufficient to administer a single dose of 5-HT(3) antagonists prior to chemotherapy. For ondansetron and granisetron, the best documented substances within this class of drugs, 8 mg (ondansteron) and 3 mg (granisetron) are considered standard dosages. Among the corticoids, most data have been accumulated for dexamethasone. A standard dose of 10 to 20 mg can be administered prior to chemotherapy. Right after and especially on the days following chemotherapy higher dosages seem to be indicated.

Further therapy improvements, especially concerning emesis and nausea on the days following chemotherapy, are necessary and are currently object of clinical research.

Tropisetron, ondansetron, and granisetron are considered equally efficacious, supported by several international studies. However, there are interindividual variations in their metabolism that could affect efficacy. The clustering of such variations may change from one to another nation. Therefore, their equality must be validated in Turkish patients. The aim of this study was to compare their efficacies, side-effect profiles, and costs in the prophylaxis of emesis induced by moderate to high emetogenic chemotherapies.

A total of 158 patients with a median age of 48 years, 115 (72.8 percent) female and 43 (27.2 percent) male, were included, respectively. Fifty-one, 61, and 46 patients were allocated to tropisetron (5 mg), ondansetron (8 mg), and granisetron (3 mg IV) in combination with 8 mg dexamethasone, which were continued 5 mg once a day, 8 mg b.i.d. and 1 mg b.i.d. PO for 5 days, respectively.

The complete response (CR) rates in the control of acute emesis were 80.4 percent with tropisetron, 72.1 percent with ondansetron, and 71.7 percent granisetron (p = 0.877). CR rates in delayed emesis (Days 2-5) were 68.6 percent, 68.9 percent, and 76.1 percent, respectively (p = 0.527). Rates of freedom from nausea in the same period were 37.3 percent, 35.9 percent, and 33.9 percent (p = 0.949). Nausea control rates, side-effect profile did not differ. However, headache seemed to be encountered higher (45.6 percent) in Turkish patients than others (3.9-9 percent). Tropisetron is the least expensive one ($95.3 per cycle) according to current prices in Turkey.

There were no differences among the 3 serotonin antagonists with respect to efficacy and frequency of side-effects in our patients. Tropisetron is the least expensive at current prices. The choice may be based on other parameters, such as ease of administration and patient preference.

In highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the recommended dose of the serotonin-receptor antagonist ondansetron (5 mg/m(2) q8h) may be insufficient to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In adults, ondansetron-loading doses (OLD) of 32 mg are safe. We aimed to evaluate in children the safety of an OLD of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v., followed by two doses of 5 mg/m(2) q8h.

This retrospective single-center study included all pediatric oncology patients having received > or =1 OLD between 2002 and 2005. Adverse events (AE) definitely, probably, or possibly related to OLD were studied, excluding AE not or unlikely related to the OLD. Associations between potential predictors and at least moderate AE were analyzed by mixed logistic regression.

Of 167 patients treated with chemotherapy, 37 (22%) received 543 OLD. The most common AE were hypotension, fatigue, injection site reaction, headache, hot flashes/flushes, and dizziness. At least mild AE were described in 139 OLD (26%), at least moderate AE in 23 (4.2%), and severe AE in 5 (0.9%; exact 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-2.1). Life-threatening or lethal AE were not observed (0.0%; 0.0-0.6). At least moderate AE were significantly more frequent in female patients (odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% CI 1.4-8.8; p = 0.010), after erroneously given second OLD (17.0; 1.9-154; p = 0.012) and higher 24 h cumulative surface corrected dose (1.26 per mg/m(2); 1.06-1.51; p = 0.009). OLD given to infants below 2 years were not associated with more frequent AE.

Ondansetron-loading doses of 16 mg/m(2) (top, 24 mg) i.v. seem to be safe in infants, children, and adolescents.

Comparing antiemetic efficacy of different 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists (5-HT(3)RAs) is difficult due to inter-study variability. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to comparatively evaluate dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron and tropisetron for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Comparisons between 5-HT(3)RAs were based on 44 randomized studies (including 12,343 patients) identified by MEDLINE, CANCERLIT or EMBASE searches and subcategorized by chemotherapy type (cisplatin- or non-cisplatin-based).

When all studies were combined, granisetron was equivalent to ondansetron (n = 27), and showed an advantage vs tropisetron (p = 0.018; n = 12). Ondansetron vs tropisetron (n = 11) and ondansetron vs dolasetron (n = 3) revealed equivalence in each comparison. An advantage for 3 mg granisetron vs 8 mg ondansetron was found in non-cisplatin-based studies (p = 0.015; n = 6). Overall equivalence was seen between ondansetron, 24 or 32 mg, and granisetron, 2 or 3 mg, for all studies (n = 13). There was a possible advantage for higher (24 or 32 mg) vs lower (8 mg) ondansetron dose regimens with cisplatin-based trials (n = 6). No differences were seen between 3 and 1 mg granisetron doses (n = 6).

Efficacy of 5-HT(3)RAs for preventing CINV following cisplatin- and non-cisplatin-based chemotherapy is comparable, with the exception of granisetron vs tropisetron. Some differences were noted in dosing subanalyses.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem for cancer patients. Aprepitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, is approved for use with 5-HT3 antagonists and corticosteroids to prevent CINV associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of standard aprepitant use has not been established.

We developed a Markov model to compare three strategies for CINV: conventional treatment with a 5-HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid, conventional treatment plus aprepitant, and conventional treatment with aprepitant added after the onset of CINV. Data from published clinical trials provided probabilities and utilities for the model. Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Federal Supply Scale provided costs for medical resources and medications utilized. Resource use data were based on a randomized clinical trial and routine clinical practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each aprepitant strategy was calculated in US$ per healthy day equivalent (HDE) and converted to dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in model parameters.

Adding aprepitant after CINV occurred cost $264 per HDE ($96,333/QALY). The three-drug strategy cost $267/HDE with a 95% confidence range of $248-$305/HDE ($97,429/QALY; $90,396-$111,239/QALY). In univariate analyses, the most influential factors on the ICER were: the cost of aprepitant, the likelihood of delayed CINV without aprepitant, the likelihood of acute CINV with/without aprepitant, and the increase in HDE from avoiding CINV.

Aprepitant provides modest incremental benefits compared with conventional management of CINV. Routine aprepitant use appears most cost-effective when the likelihood of delayed CINV or the cost of rescue medications is high.

Chemotherapy-induced toxicities commonly occur in sites within the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and account for dose-limiting effects. These toxicities are major contributing factors to dose reduction, delays, and cessation of cancer treatment. Through intensive therapies including surgery, combination chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy, an increasing number of patients with cancer are experiencing improved survival and long-term disease-free survival, as well as palliation of disease-related symptoms. Thus, GI toxicities should be predicted and appropriate interventions initiated to prevent them when possible and provide effective supportive measures and comprehensive follow-up care. This review will discuss the etiology, incidence, prevention, and treatment of GI toxicities of cancer chemotherapy.

Nausea and emesis as a consequence of chemotherapy or radiotherapy can have an adverse effect on patients' quality of life during cancer treatment and may last for > 5 days after administration. Guidelines suggest that, used at appropriate doses, the 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists--which are considered the antiemetic "gold standard" when they are administered in combination with corticosteroids--demonstrate equivalent efficacy and safety. However, due to financial considerations, these agents often are used at lower doses than recommended.

A literature review of relevant publications pertaining to the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis and dosing issues of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists was undertaken to provide a comprehensive review of dosing issues relevant to the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

The issue of "down dosing" was particularly pertinent because of the nature of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist dose-response curve: A steep dose-response profile within a narrow dose range suggests that antiemetic control will be lost suddenly after dose deescalation. However, the array of predisposing and confounding patient factors indicates that it is unlikely that a loss of antiemetic control will be apparent across a population; rather, individuals will experience loss of control as the dose is reduced below threshold. Of the 4 5-HT3 receptor antagonists currently licensed in the United States (granisetron, ondansetron, dolasetron, and palonosetron), ondansetron is used sometimes at lower than optimal doses, and there is evidence to suggest that even the approved oral dose of dolasetron may be suboptimal.

Suboptimal dosing not only will be detrimental to patients' quality of life but, ultimately, will prove counterproductive in terms of hospital resources, and it will add to the already significant socioeconomic burden associated with cancer therapy. Therefore, the dose of antiemetic agent administered should be sufficiently high to ensure good emesis control across the whole patient population.

Management of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced emesis has improved significantly following the introduction of the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists. Prophylactic use of these agents is recommended for the prevention of both chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, given with a corticosteroid. Despite these advances, nausea and vomiting remain among the most feared and debilitating adverse effects of cytotoxic therapy. The shift towards a more elderly population of patients with cancer presents additional considerations for supportive care, with an emphasis on achieving control of nausea and vomiting, whilst minimising toxicity and avoiding drug-drug interactions. This review presents some of the key issues for consideration in optimising antiemetic therapy. The PubMed search engine was used to search for relevant literature (up to December 2004) and relevant international congress materials collected during 2003 and 2004.

While the early stages of nausea and vomiting are 5-HT-mediated, identification of a role for substance P in late emesis has led to the development of the NK1-receptor antagonist, aprepitant. As a new agent, the clinical profile of aprepitant is still being explored, including its interaction with concomitant medications. Patients who achieve good control of acute and late-acute nausea and vomiting have a reduced risk of experiencing delayed onset symptoms, emphasising the importance of prophylactic management with effective agents. Although the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists are widely considered to have equivalent efficacy, they vary in half-life and the nature of antagonism at receptors. Their metabolic profiles also differ, with cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolism affecting their propensity for drug-drug interactions. Several sets of guidelines are available that outline recommendations for selection and use of antiemetic therapy. However, under-use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists has been reported in both the radiotherapy and chemotherapy settings, and some commonly used doses may be suboptimal.

In optimising antiemetic therapy, wider implementation of guidelines is desirable, as is consideration of each patient's individual needs. Safety and tolerability of supportive care medications should be a key consideration, and cardiovascular warnings and the possibility of drug-drug interactions should be given sufficient consideration, particularly in view of the older age of the population with cancer.

5-HT3-receptor antagonists are the current antiemetic 'gold standard' for chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Interestingly, studies have shown that patients experiencing poor control of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with one antiemetic therapy may respond well to another agent, including a drug of the same class. This review examines pharmacological differences between the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists in order to determine potential reasons for their differing efficacy, particularly in relation to refractory emesis. Differences in drug metabolism by the cytochrome P450 system, inadequate dosing of the respective agents, differences in onset and duration of action, and effects on serotonin release and reuptake are discussed.

The serotonin type-3 (5-HT3) antagonists represent a significant advance in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting (N/V) from highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We sought to determine if any differences in efficacy or adverse effects exist between two such agents, ondansetron and granisetron, during conditioning therapy for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously every 8 h or granisetron 10 microg/kg intravenously daily. Additionally, all patients received scheduled dexamethasone and lorazepam. Prophylaxis was continued until 24 h after completion of chemotherapy. Nausea and distress were measured subjectively with visual analog scales and emetic episodes were quantified. Of the 110 randomized patients, 96 were evaluable for efficacy and safety. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the ondansetron- and granisetron-treated patients, evaluated by comparing the degree of nausea and distress, number of emetic episodes and overall control of emesis. The adverse effects were also comparable and no patients were removed from study because of severe toxicities. This trial demonstrates that ondansetron and granisetron are equally effective at preventing acute N/V associated with conditioning therapy frequently used for HSCT. The agent of choice should be based on drug acquisition cost or preference.

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-HT(3) 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-HT(3)) in combination with dexamethasone and aprepitant are the standard of care for the prevention of emesis following chemotherapy of high emetic risk.

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most feared side effects of cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can be broadly categorized as acute (occurring within 24 hours of therapy), delayed (persisting for 6-7 days after therapy), or anticipatory (occurring prior to chemotherapy administration). Breakthrough and refractory nausea and vomiting describe the symptoms of uncontrolled emesis. Evidence suggests that good control of nausea and vomiting during the acute period correlates with the control of delayed emesis. Conversely, protection failure during the first 24 hours has a high predictive value for delayed emesis in the same cycle. The 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists, regarded as the 'gold standard' in antiemetic therapy, are the first-line treatment for moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens in adults and children. Evidence suggests that the 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists administered in combination with corticosteroids afford the best protection from symptoms of acute emesis and, by extrapolation, the most effective prevention of delayed emesis. Antiemetic therapeutic guidelines stress that the goal of therapy is to prevent cytostatic-induced nausea and vomiting. Therefore, the prophylactic use of the most effective antiemetic regimen-taking into consideration the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and individual patient characteristics-must be adhered to in order to prevent acute, delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting.

The advent of the 5HT(3) receptor antagonists (5HT(3) antagonists) in the 1990 s and the combination with dexamethasone has resulted in acute emesis protection in 70% of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Despite complete protection in the acute phase, however, 40% of patients as yet have symptoms in the delayed phase. 5HT(3) antagonists and dexamethasone are only modestly effective in this delayed phase. Moreover, the antiemetic protection over repeated cycles is not sustained. Neurokinine 1 receptor antagonists (NK(1) antagonists) belong to a new class of antiemetic agents that specifically target the NK(1) receptor, which is involved in both the acute and, particularly, the delayed phase of emesis. Clinical studies have demonstrated that the addition of NK(1) antagonists to dual therapy with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone improves the acute emesis protection by a further 10-15%. In the delayed phase, the proportion of patients remaining free of emesis increases by even 20-30%. Since the effectiveness of this triplet combination was found to be sustained over six cycles of chemotherapy, the chance for an individual patient to remain completely protected during both the acute and the delayed phase over six chemotherapy cycles is nearly doubled.

Cisplatin (4 mg/kg, i.v.) induced both early emesis, which appears within the first 8-h period, and delayed emesis, which appears between 8 and 48 h after its administration to pigeons. GR205171 ([(2S-cis)-N-((2-methoxy-5(5-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-tetrazol-1-yl)-phenyl) methyl)-2-phenyl-3-piperidinamine dihydrochloride]) administered intramuscularly (1-10 mg/kg) reduced significantly the number of emetic response to cisplatin: this reduction was 60-81% (P < 0.05) for early emesis and 48-64% (P < 0.05) for the delayed response. Intracerebroventricularly administered GR205171 (30 microg/kg) also reduced the number of emetic responses: 53% (P < 0.05) in early emesis and 88% (P < 0.05) in the delayed response. However, the latency time to the first emesis was not affected by GR205171. Direct injection of cisplatin (10 microg/kg) into the fourth ventricle produced emesis, which was reduced by GR205171 administered via the peripheral or central route. Substance P-immunoreactive fibres were distributed throughout the dorsal vagal complex. These results suggest that the antiemetic effect of GR205171 on both emetic responses to cisplatin acts on a central site, and that the onset of the emetic response may be mediated partly via GR205171-insensitive mechanisms.

In view of the similarity in chemical structure of the available 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists it is assumed, whilst these agents all act at the same receptor, that failure to one agent would predict subsequent failure to all 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists. We conducted a randomized double blind trial of granisetron 3 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg versus continued treatment with ondansetron 8 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg in patients with protection failure on ondansetron 8 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg during the first 24 hours following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Of 40 eligible patients, 21 received ondansetron + dexamethasone and 19 received granisetron + dexamethasone. We found a significant benefit from crossing-over to granisetron after failure on ondansetron. Of the 19 patients who crossed over to granisetron, 9 patients obtained complete protection, whereas this was observed in 1 of the 21 patients continuing ondansetron, P = 0.005. These results indicate that there is no complete cross-resistance between 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists, and that patients who have acute protection failure on one 5HT(3)-receptor antagonist should be offered cross-over to another 5HT(3)-receptor antagonist.

Substance P is localised in brainstem regions associated with emesis. Based on studies in the ferret, it was postulated that a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist would have antiemetic activity as monotherapy in humans receiving chemotherapy. L-758,298 is a water-soluble, intravenous (i.v.) prodrug for L-754,030, a potent and selective NK1 receptor antagonist. This double-blind, randomised, active-agent (ondansetron)-controlled study enrolled 53 cisplatin-naïve patients and evaluated the prevention of both acute (0-24 h) and delayed (days 2-7) emesis after cisplatin treatment (50-100 mg/m(2)). All patients received i.v. L-758,298 (60 or 100 mg) (n=30) or ondansetron (32 mg) (n=23) before cisplatin and efficacy was evaluated up to day 7 post-cisplatin. Nausea was assessed by means of a four-point ordinal scale at intervals over the 7 day period. In the acute period, the proportion of patients without emesis in the L-758,298 and ondansetron groups was 37 and 52%, respectively (no significant difference between the groups). Comparing the distribution of average nausea scores over the entire first 24 h revealed no significant difference between the groups. In the delayed period, the proportion of patients without emesis in the L-758,298 and ondansetron treatment groups was 72 and 30%, respectively (P=0.005). The distribution of average nausea scores in the delayed period was lower in the L-758,298 group compared with the ondansetron group (P=0.15 for the entire delayed period and P=0.043 for day 2 only). No serious adverse events were attributed to L-758,298. A single dose of L-758,298 substantially suppressed the delayed nausea and vomiting characteristic of high dose cisplatin and also appeared to reduce acute emesis post-cisplatin. The data also support the proposition that the underlying mechanism(s) of acute and delayed emesis are different.

The NK1-receptor antagonist MK-869 (L-754,030) has demonstrated antiemetic activity in humans receiving chemotherapy. Objectives of the present trial included the first assessment of oral MK-869 plus dexamethasone compared with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone for prevention of acute and delayed emesis after high-dose cisplatin. Furthermore, the study sought to confirm that addition of MK-869 to a 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone was more effective than just the 5HT(3) antagonist plus dexamethasone for prevention of acute and delayed emesis.

This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial in 351 cisplatin-naïve patients evaluated prevention of acute (0 to 24 hours) and delayed emesis (primary efficacy parameter; days 2 to 5) after cisplatin (> or =70 mg/m(2)). Patients were randomized to four groups (I to IV) (n = number randomized; number evaluable): granisetron (10 microg/kg intravenously) pre-cisplatin followed by placebo on days 2 to 5 (group I) (n = 90; 90); granisetron and MK-869 (400 mg PO [by mouth]) pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group II) (n = 86; 84); MK-869 (400 mg PO) the evening before and pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group III) (n = 89; 88); or MK-869 (400 mg PO) pre-cisplatin, followed by MK-869 (300 mg PO) on days 2 to 5 (group IV) (n = 86; 84). All patients also received dexamethasone (20 mg PO) before cisplatin. Additional medication was available to treat emesis or nausea at any time.

In the acute period, 57%, 80%, 46%, and 43% of patients were without emesis in groups I, II, III, and IV, respectively (P <.01 for group II v group I). In the delayed period, the proportion of patients without emesis in groups I, II, III, and IV was 29%, 63%, 51%, and 57%, respectively (P <.01 for groups II, III, and IV v group I). The distribution of nausea scores in the delayed period was lower when comparing group II with group I (P <.05 for days 1 to 5 and days 2 to 5). One serious adverse event (dizziness) was rated as possibly related to MK-869.

Once daily oral administration of MK-869 was effective in reducing delayed emesis and nausea after high-dose cisplatin. However, the combination of the 5HT3 antagonist plus dexamethasone was numerically superior to MK-869 plus dexamethasone in reducing acute emesis. Confirming and extending previous findings, the triple combination of a 5HT(3) antagonist, MK-869, and dexamethasone provided the best control of acute emesis.

To describe a systematic evaluation of the outcomes associated with revising institutional guidelines for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to promote cost-effective use of the serotonin (5-HT3) antagonists.

The 5-HT3 antagonist of choice in the antiemetic guidelines was revised from intravenous ondansetron to oral granisetron in August 1995. Patient assessments were conducted immediately prior to (Period 1) and after (Period 2) guideline revision using validated questionnaires. The effectiveness of the two 5-HT3 antagonists were compared and reported to the prescribing oncologists. Outcomes were assessed one year after guideline revision (Period 3) using identical methods.

No difference was found in the rate of total control (no emesis, no nausea) between patients receiving oral granisetron (60%) and intravenous ondansetron (56%) (p = 0.408, Period 1 vs. 2). Nausea severity, the number of emesis episodes, and use of rescue antiemetics were also equivalent. Prescriber compliance with using the 5-HT3 antagonist of choice and dose increased from 48% to 61% following adoption of oral granisetron. By Period 3, compliance increased to 78%, and satisfactory control of acute CINV was again documented. The costs for prevention of acute CINV decreased from $107 in Period 1 (intravenous ondansetron only) to $65 in Period 3 (oral granisetron).

Outcomes associated with use of oral granisetron and intravenous ondansetron were equivalent in this patient population. Guideline revision and outcome documentation by the oncology pharmacists resulted in increased compliance with institution guidelines and a 40% cost savings.

The neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists are a new class of agents designed to reduce the risk of emesis following chemotherapy, particularly with cisplatin. Early data from double-blind randomised trials suggest that an orally administered NK1 antagonist can reduce the absolute risk of acute and delayed emesis following cisplatin by 20 and 30%, respectively.

To measure the value that patients with cancer place on improved emesis control and quality of life.

Willingness-to-pay analysis.

Five study sites in Canada, Italy, Spain and Greece.

245 patients with cancer either receiving chemotherapy with cisplatin or who had received cisplatin-based chemotherapy within the previous 6 months.

After background information had been presented, patients were asked to define the maximum that they would pay per day for a drug that reduced their risk of acute and delayed (days 2 to 5) emesis by 20 and 30%, respectively. Costs were converted to US dollars ($US) using year 2000 exchange rates.

For a 20% improvement in acute emesis, Canadian, Italian and Spanish patients with cancer were willing to pay $US46, $US34 and $US63 per day, respectively, compared with $US8 for patients from Greece (p < 0.001). For a 30% improvement in delayed emesis, Canadian, Italian and Spanish patients with cancer were also willing to pay more than their Greek counterparts (SUS41, $US31, $US50 and $US9 daily for 4 days, respectively; p < 0.001). These significant differences in patient value between countries remained, even after adjusting for socioeconomic variables and previous history of emesis.

There are substantial cultural differences in how patients with cancer value benefit and improved quality of life. Since the majority of the world's population resides outside North America and Western Europe, there may be a need to re-evaluate perceived levels of patient benefit and measures of quality of life.

The serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists or 'setrons' have become the standard of care for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis (CIE) and are first-line therapy for acute CIE in healthcare organisations worldwide. However, their superior efficacy versus standard antiemetics comes at a significant cost. Currently, 3 agents are available in the US: ondansetron, granisetron and dolasetron. The most important treatment-related factor contributing to CIE is the emetogenicity of chemotherapy. The ability to customise, or stratify, the setron dose to match the emetogenic challenge of the chemotherapy administered has potential benefits, both clinically and economically. In adults, there is an appreciable amount of clinical literature addressing stratified administration; however, the amount of 'hard' economic data is rather limited. Intuitively, if clinical outcomes are equivalent, then stratified administration should be associated with economic benefits, as it generally promotes the use of doses lower than those recommended by the manufacturer. The literature strongly substantiates this for ondansetron, but is not as favourable for granisetron or dolasetron. As the rationale and justification for dose stratification is contained in the clinical literature, the authors have reviewed the pertinent literature supporting the clinical and economic benefits of dose stratification in both adult and paediatric patients. The authors also provide a discussion of various additional strategies that can be employed to ensure the appropriate and cost-effective use of setrons in real-world practice settings. These strategies include the use of lower doses than recommended by manufacturers, use for acute versus delayed phase emesis, enhancing the antiemetic efficacy by the addition of a corticosteroid, use of oral versus injectable formulations (when appropriate) and the implementation and use of local, national and international drug use guidelines.

The introduction of serotonin antagonists as antiemetics for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting represented a major step toward better patient tolerance and adherence to this type of treatment. Several published trials compared different serotonin antagonists without demonstrating clear superiority of any one of them. Because most of these trials compared ondansetron with granisetron, the authors conducted a meta-analysis to determine if the current data available show any therapeutic difference between them.

MEDLINE and CANCERLIT databases were searched from 1990 to May 1999, and pertinent article references also were surveyed, without restriction to English language. The authors included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that had more than 25 patients per arm and compared ondansetron to granisetron for prophylaxis of acute (A) (< 24 hours) and delayed (D) (> 24 hours) nausea (N) and vomiting (V) induced by highly (H) or moderately (M) emetogenic chemotherapy. Only the first chemotherapy cycle was considered for studies that involved a crossover design.

Fourteen studies with 6467 evaluable patients among the 21 studies retrieved were selected for this meta-analysis. In none of the eight scenarios studied (AHV, AHN, AMV, AMN, DHV, DHN, DMV, and DMN) could the authors detect any significant differences in the antiemetic efficacy of any of these medications.

The authors conclude that both granisetron and ondansetron have similar antiemetic efficacy for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Because the number of comparative studies that addressed the delayed nausea and vomiting scenarios is low, further RCTs are still needed to confirm these results.

Tropisetron is a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) antagonist that is primarily used in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Antagonism of 5-HT3 binding sites in the peripheral and central nervous system is the probable mechanism of prevention of acute nausea and vomiting. Effects on delayed nausea and vomiting are less well understood as these are probably not mediated solely by 5-HT3 receptors. Tropisetron monotherapy is effective for the control of acute, and to a lesser extent delayed, nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately to severely emetogenic chemotherapy. The combination of dexamethasone and tropisetron is more effective than monotherapy. Complete control of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting was obtained in 69 to 97% of patients receiving the combination compared with 46 to 80% receiving tropisetron monotherapy in randomised trials. There were generally no significant differences between the control of acute or delayed nausea and vomiting provided by tropisetron, ondansetron or granisetron in randomised, comparative trials. The antiemetic efficacy of tropisetron was maintained over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. Most comparative studies showed tropisetron monotherapy to be more effective than metoclopramide in controlling acute nausea and vomiting, with the exception of 1 study which showed similar efficacy. However, high dose metoclopramide plus dexamethasone provided similar control of delayed emesis to tropisetron plus dexamethasone. Tropisetron is also effective in children, including those who responded poorly to previous antiemetic treatment. Tropisetron and ondansetron generally have similar efficacies in this population. The drug enhanced patients' quality of life and was well tolerated by adults and children alike. The recommended oral and IV dosage of tropisetron is 5 mg once daily; there is no increase in efficacy with doses >5 mg.

Tropisetron is similar to other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in both adults and children. It is suitable as first-line therapy (combined with a corticosteroid) for the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting in patients treated with moderately to severely emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents. This combination is also moderately effective in the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting.

1. Intravenously injected cisplatin at a dose of 4 mg kg(-1) induced early and delayed emesis in all pigeons without occurrence of lethality during a 72 h observation period. The early emetic response occurred with a latency of 81.3+/-8.0 min (n=15) and reached a peak at 2 - 3 h, and decreased gradually within 8 h after injection. Then the delayed emetic response, whose peak was found between 10 to 23 h, lasted up to 48 h. The emetic response markedly declined after 48 h. 2. Reserpine markedly reduced monoamine levels in both brain and intestine and completely abolished the early and delayed emesis. Dexamethasone markedly reduced not only the early but also the delayed emetic responses. p-Chlorophenylalanine decreased the level of serotonin in brain and intestine without affecting noradrenaline and dopamine and partly reduced the early emetic response, but did not affect delayed emesis. 3. Bilateral vagotomy prolonged the latency time to the onset of early emesis, and reduced the emetic responses in both the early and delayed phases. 4. The above results suggest that the cisplatin-induced early emesis in the pigeon is partially mediated via the vagal nerve and reserpine-sensitive monoaminergic systems including the serotonergic system; the delayed emesis is associated with monoaminergic but not the serotonergic systems.

The purpose of this study was to compare the antiemetic efficacy of three 5-HT3 antagonists (granisetron, ondansetron, tropisetron) plus dexamethasone for the prevention of acute emesis induced by high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy. This was a randomized, open label, crossover study. Recruited into the study were 94 chemotherapy-naive patients of whom five were excluded because chemotherapy was not given, noncisplatin regimen was used instead, or presence of anticipatory vomiting. The remaining 89 evaluable patients were mostly (86.5%) male, and were all treated for head and neck cancers. The antiemetic regimens consisted of 1) granisetron 3 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. on day 1 (GRADEX); 2) tropisetron 5 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. on day 1 (TRODEX); and 3) ondansetron 8 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. to be followed by ondansetron 8 mg p.o. x 2 on day 1 (ONDEX). Patients were randomized to receive one of the three regimens in the first cycle, and treatment was crossed over to the other two regimens in subsequent cycles. Antiemetic efficacy was assessed using self-report diaries recording the number of vomiting episodes as well as duration and severity of nausea within the first 24 hours. Complete response was defined as no vomiting with or without mild nausea, and major response was defined as one vomiting episode and/or moderate to severe nausea. Major efficacy refers to either complete or major response. A total of 219 cycles was given to 89 patients: 16 received one cycle only, 16 received two cycles, and 57 received three cycles. No carryover effects were observed between cycles. Using pooled data from all cycles, the complete response rates to GRADEX, TRODEX, and ONDEX were 81%, 68%, and 71%, respectively (p = 0.11); the corresponding major efficacy rates were 91%, 93%, and 86%, respectively (p = 0.36). When only the first cycle was considered, the complete response rates to GRADEX, TRODEX, and ONDEX were 81%, 75%, and 74%, respectively (p = 0.58); the corresponding major efficacy rates were 92%, 94%, and 84%, respectively (p = 0.38). Analysis of the crossover data showed that the majority of patients achieved complete response or major efficacy with the different pairs of regimens, and there were no significant differences between different regimens in terms of complete response or major efficacy. The only exception was GRADEX versus TRODEX, in which 15.5% of patient achieved complete response with GRADEX as compared with 1.7% with TRODEX (p = 0.025). The majority of patients (53%) did not report any preference, whereas 14% preferred GRADEX, 15% preferred TRODEX, and 18% preferred ONDEX. The three 5-HT3 antagonists, when used in combination with steroids, had similar major efficacy for prophylaxis against cisplatin-induced acute emesis. Although GRADEX was superior to TRODEX in terms of complete response, this may not be of clinical significance. The choice of antiemetic regimens should therefore depend on patient preference and drug cost.

Since their introduction, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have become the agents of choice in the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and are generally superior to high-dose metoclopramide regimens. The availability of four different agents (ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron, and tropisetron) within this class has prompted investigations into potential differences between the drugs, which appear to be few. More importantly, the results of recently conducted randomized comparative trials in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy have demonstrated similar efficacy. Although study designs and patient populations differed, seven large comparative trials in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy reported no significant differences in complete or complete plus major response rates among the agents. Similar results were generally reported in trials evaluating patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The safety and tolerability of these agents also appear to be similar. The most common adverse events include headache, gastrointestinal effects, lightheadedness, and sedation. All agents are available in both intravenous and oral dosage forms and may be administered as a single dose.

This randomized, controlled, double-blind pilot study assessed the efficacy and safety of oral versus i.v. granisetron, both in combination with non-5-HT3 antiemetics, in preventing emesis caused by high-dose chemotherapy. Fifty-one patients who underwent peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation (PBPCT) or bone marrow transplantation (BMT) were evaluated. Efficacy was assessed by the number of emetic episodes during the worst 24 h period. A complete response (CR) was defined as no vomiting, partial response (PR) as less than three emetic episodes and failure as three or more emetic episodes. Patients who received oral granisetron experienced significantly (p<0.0008) fewer emetic episodes than those who received i.v. granisetron; however, the number of emetic episodes over the worst 24 h was similar between the oral and i.v. granisetron groups (13 and 15, respectively), as were the overall response rates (CR+PR, 54.5 and 41.4%, respectively). Both dosage forms were well tolerated. Based on these findings, further comparative studies of oral granisetron are warranted in patients undergoing PBPCT or BMT.

Nausea and vomiting continue to rank as important side effects for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The class of drugs known as the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have become widely used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and are considered a standard part of care for moderately- and highly-emetogenic chemotherapy in combination with corticosteroids. Ondansetron (Zofran, Glaxo Wellcome), granisetron (Kytril, SmithKline Beecham) and dolasetron (Anzemet, Hoechst Marion Roussel) are commercially available in the US. Intravenous forms of all three drugs have demonstrated efficacy in preventing acute (< or = 24 h following chemotherapy) nausea and emesis due to moderately- and highly-emetogenic chemotherapy. Oral forms of the drugs have been shown to be effective in prevention of nausea and emesis due to moderately-emetogenic chemotherapy. More recently, oral 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have demonstrated efficacy in the prevention of nausea and vomiting due to highly-emetogenic chemotherapy as well. Comparative trials between the three agents have shown no clinically important differences in outcome and they should be considered clinically equivalent. Optimal oral anti-emetic regimens for high-dose chemotherapy with bone marrow or stem cell transplantation remain to be determined and future oral studies should target this population. In general, the decision of which 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to select for formulary inclusion should be based on the dose of anti-emetic used and the acquisition cost of the agents being compared. The oral route should be used whenever possible.

To assess the impact with time of guidelines on antiemetic use in an 850-bed Paris university hospital with a high proportion of cancer patients.

Guidelines on the use of antiemetics available in cancer chemotherapy were drafted according to the Delphi technique. Their implementation was based upon a patient-specific antiemetic prescription form. To assess the impact of guideline implementation over time, discrepancies between current practice and the guidelines were compared before guideline implementation (between March and August 1995) and after implementation (between March and August 1997, and March and August 1998).

Before the Delphi panel's guidelines were implemented, 5-HT3 antagonists were inappropriately administered in 70% of cases. After guideline implementation, this proportion dropped significantly (P<0.0001, Fisher's exact test) to 22% between March and August 1997 and 28% between March and August 1998.

Implementation of guidelines seems to have resulted in significant changes with time, although a causal relationship has not been demonstrated. The development of guidelines by our hospital's multidisciplinary working group helped the various consultants to adjust medical practices to take account of these changes.