Costs of treating and preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of ondansetron availability on the costs of managing nausea and vomiting. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed antiemetic costs (drug costs, nursing time, pharmacy time, physician's time, supplies, and facility "hotel" costs, in 1991 Canadian dollars) for all patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy from 6 months before to 6 months after ondansetron became commercially available in September 1991. We compared the costs for treating patients who received ondansetron versus those who received other antiemetic regimens, the costs for treating patients in the 6 months before versus the 6 months after ondansetron commercial availability, and the costs for treating patients in the first 4 months versus the last 4 months of the study period. RESULTS: We found no cost differences for patients treated with ondansetron versus other antiemetic regimens. However, there was a significant reduction in emesis management costs for patients treated after versus before the availability of ondansetron: for patients treated in the last third versus first third of the study period, there was a decrease in cost per patient per month of treatment of $374 (95% confidence interval, $243 to $505). These savings were achieved through a reduction in hospital bed days and other costs associated with the prevention and more effective management of nausea and vomiting. At the same time, the number of patients who received emetogenic chemotherapy and their average age increased, presumably because of the better control of gastrointestinal toxicity. CONCLUSION: Ondansetron availability has been associated with changes in the clinical management of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and with overall cost savings compared with previously available antiemetic therapy.     

Prevention of delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with acute emesis

The rates of delayed nausea and vomiting by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with previous experience of acute emesis are usually quite high. This is a pilot study aiming to evaluate the safety of a new antiemetic schedule to prevent delayed emesis in this subset of patients. During 5 consecutive cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, we evaluated 50 patients (15 males) who experienced acute emesis in the first cycle of treatment. The regimen for prevention of delayed emesis consisted of daily tropisetron (5 mg orally from d 2 to d 6 of each chemotherapeutic cycle) associated to ACTH-Depot (1 mg intramuscularly 24 and 68 h after the initiation of chemotherapy). In 77% of chemotherapy cycles, there was a total elimination of nausea and vomiting, whereas in the remaining 23% of cycles, there was a major response defined as ≤ 2 vomiting episodes per cycle or nausea grade 1 according to the WHO. The efficacy of the antiemetic regimen persisted during the entire treatment program without the appearance of toxic effects. The proposed antiemetic regimen is highly active in preventing delayed nausea and vomiting episodes in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Moreover, no toxic effects were observed. These promising results require confirmation by a randomized trial.     

Acute and delayed nausea and emesis control in pediatric oncology patients

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge there is little information available regarding the effectiveness of standard antiemetic therapy among cancer patients who receive emetogenic chemotherapy in clinical practice, especially in the pediatric population. The current study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of standard antiemetic interventions among children receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of antiemetic surveys for children who received emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients and/or their parents were surveyed for acute and delayed nausea and emesis after each course of emetogenic chemotherapy. The survey consisted of validated measures of the severity of nausea and emesis. Complete protection (CP) rates were calculated for each chemotherapy regimen during both the acute and delayed phases and also by gender and age group (ages birth-3 yrs, 4-11 yrs, and 12-20 yrs). Antiemetic therapy consisted of intravenous ondansetron administered once daily during chemotherapy either alone (for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy) or in combination with dexamethasone (for severely emetogenic chemotherapy). RESULTS: In total, 224 different patients completed 1256 surveys. CP from both acute and delayed nausea and emesis was more likely in the children ages birth-3 years than in older children. For moderately emetogenic regimens, nausea and emesis in the acute and delayed phases were controlled well. Among severely emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, 7 of 12 different regimen types had CP rates < 50% in either the acute phase or the delayed phase. CP rates were particularly low for cisplatin-based and cyclophosphamide-based regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Nausea and emesis remain significant problems among children who receive emetogenic chemotherapy. CP rates were associated significantly with patient age, and higher rates were observed among very young children.     

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: current and new standards in the antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment

Nausea and vomiting are considered as two of the most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting have been classified into acute, delayed and anticipatory based on the time of onset. The frequency of nausea and vomiting depends primarily on the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic agents used. With the introduction of the 5-HT3 receptor-antagonists in combination with dexamethasone in the early 1990s approximately 70% of patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy were protected from acute emesis. However, 40% of patients have symptoms in the delayed phase. Another group of antiemetics, the neurokinin-1-receptor-antagonists, have recently been introduced. The addition of neurokinin receptor (NK1 receptor)-antagonists to standard therapy significantly improves emesis protection in the acute and in particular in the delayed phase by approximately 20%. Due to these new developments, revised antiemetic guidelines have been set. Here, the most recent developments in antiemetic therapy, including these guidelines, are reviewed.     

Antiemetic efficacy of the neurokinin-1 antagonist, aprepitant, plus a 5HT3 antagonist and a corticosteroid in patients receiving anthracyclines or cyclophosphamide in addition to high-dose cisplatin: analysis of combined data from two Phase III randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND: The tendency of chemotherapeutic regimens to cause vomiting is dependent on the individual drugs in the regimen. The authors analyzed data combined from 2 Phase III trials to assess the effect of the neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) antagonist aprepitant combined with a 5HT(3) antagonist plus a corticosteroid in a subpopulation receiving > 1 emetogenic chemotherapeutic agent. METHODS: In the current study, 1043 cisplatin-naive patients (42% were women) receiving cisplatin-based (> or = 70 mg/m(2)) chemotherapy were assigned randomly to a control regimen (ondansetron [O] 32 mg intravenously and dexamethasone [D] 20 mg orally on Day 1; D 8 mg twice daily on Days 2-4) or an aprepitant (A) regimen (A 125 mg orally plus O 32 mg and D 12 mg on Day 1; A 80 mg and D 8 mg once daily on Days 2-3; and D 8 mg on Day 4). Randomization was stratified for use of concomitant chemotherapy and female gender. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no rescue therapy) on Days 1-5 (0-120 hours). Data were analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach, and logistic regression was used to make treatment comparisons among patients receiving the most frequently coadministered emetogenic concomitant chemotherapy (Hesketh level > or = 3). RESULTS: Among the approximately 13% of patients (n = 81 for A; n = 80 for control) who received additional emetogenic chemotherapy (doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide), the aprepitant regimen provided a 33 percentage-point improvement in the complete response rate compared with the control regimen. Among the general population, the advantage with aprepitant was 20 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: The current analysis of > 1000 patients from 2 large randomized trials showed that in the subpopulation at increased risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to concomitant emetogenic chemotherapy, the addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetics improved protection to an even greater extent than in the general study population.     

Effectiveness of oral 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and safety of the oral 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists and the use of oral and i.v. antiemetic therapy during and after hospital admission. DATA SOURCES: Articles in medical and nursing literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: Use of oral antiemetics may help patients avoid potential complications associated with i.v. administration and be more convenient. They also are likely to lower staff and materials costs compared to i.v. formulations. Oral granisetron is the only oral antiemetic approved in the United States for use with highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Oral dolasetron and ondansetron are indicated for use with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Oral therapy is preferable to i.v. formulations for most patients. The oral 5-HT3 receptor antagonists approved for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting include dolasetron, granisetron, and ondansetron. Oral granisetron is differentiated for its safety, efficacy, and use in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oral antiemetics are preferable to i.v. antiemetics because of decreased total costs and greater convenience for patients who are able to ingest oral medication.     

Principles of managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (emesis) can significantly affect a patient's quality of life, leading to poor compliance with further chemotherapy treatment. For patients treated with emetogenic chemotherapy, it is very important to prevent nausea and vomiting completely. The incidence and severity of nausea and/or vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy are affected by numerous factors, including: 1) the specific chemotherapeutic agents used; 2) their dosage; 3) the schedule and route of administration; and 4) individual patient variability. Approximately 70 to 80% of all cancer patients receiving chemotherapy experience emesis, whereas 10% to 44% experience anticipatory emesis. The following general principles are recommended. 1) A 5-HT3 receptor antagonist should be administered prior to each day's 1st dose of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. 2) Dexamethasone should be administered once daily either orally or intravenously for every day of moderately or highly-emetogenic chemotherapy and for 2-3 days after chemotherapy for regimens that are likely to cause significant delayed-emesis. 3) The most effective way to treat anticipatory nausea and/or vomiting is to prevent it by using optimal antiemetic therapy during every cycle of treatment.     

Antiemetic control with palonosetron in patients with gastrointestinal cancer receiving a fluoropyrimidine-based regimen in addition to either irinotecan or oxaliplatin: a retrospective study

Background: For moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, palonosetron (PALO) is reported to provide complete control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in 69% of patients. Prior to August 2009, our gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients receiving the moderately emetogenic compounds oxaliplatin or irinotecan plus a fluoropyrimidine regimen received ondansetron and dexamethasone orally on day 1 of chemotherapy for CINV prevention. Beginning in August of 2009, ondansetron was replaced by PALO 0.25 mg (intravenous push). Methods: This is a single-institution retrospective study of GI cancer patients who received oxaliplatin or irinotecan plus a fluoropyrimidine. Failure of an antiemetic regimen was defined as grade ≥1 vomiting or grade ≥2 nausea (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3) on days 1 through 5 following chemotherapy. Patients were divided for analysis into pre-PALO and post-PALO cohorts. Fisher's exact test compared cohort differences. Results: A total of 305 patients were included in the study, with 157 patients in the pre-PALO cohort and 148 in the post-PALO cohort. For all patients, the risk of antiemetic failure was reduced from 50.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 42.2-58.4%] to 28.4% (95% CI 21.3-36.4%) with PALO. This reduction in the relative risk of antiemetic failure was observed in all subgroups. Conclusion: The addition of PALO may provide increased control of CINV for the moderately emetogenic regimens of oxaliplatin or irinotecan plus a fluoropyrimidine in GI cancer patients.     

Prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after moderately high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy: comparison of ondansetron, prochlorperazine, and dexamethasone

The purpose of this article is to assess the comparative antiemetic efficacy of prochlorperazine, ondansetron, and dexamethasone in the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Cancer patients (n = 232) receiving moderately high to highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized to 1 of 3 treatments: 15 mg prochlorperazine spansules twice daily; 8 mg ondansetron tablets twice daily; or 8 mg dexamethasone tablets twice daily on days 2 through 5. All patients received 24 mg ondansetron and 20 mg dexamethasone orally before chemotherapy. Daily assessment (days 1 through 5) included the number of episodes of retching and vomiting, severity of nausea, restlessness, difficulty concentrating and fatigue, treatment satisfaction, and overall quality of life (measured using a 10-cm VAS). The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) was completed on day 5. Other side effects attributed to antiemetic therapy were recorded daily. For acute CINV, total control, defined as no vomiting, retching, nausea <1 cm on a 10-cm visual analog scale, and no administration of rescue medications, was achieved in 78% in the overall group and was not significantly different in the patients randomized to the 3 treatment arms for delayed CINV. Delayed CINV was reported by 43% to 57% of patients, with the highest incidence reported on day 3. For delayed CINV, patients receiving prochlorperazine reported the lowest average nausea score on days 2 to 5, whereas patients receiving ondansetron reported the highest nausea score (P = 0.05). No statistically significant differences in CINV or side effects of antiemetic therapy were noted between treatment groups on days 2 to 5. For patients similar to those included in this study, there does not appear to be a clinically important difference in efficacy, adverse effects, or treatment satisfaction among dexamethasone, prochlorperazine, and ondansetron in the doses used in these delayed CINV regimens on days 2 to 5 in this study.     

Treatment implications for radiation-induced nausea and vomiting in specific patient groups

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) affect the management and quality of life of cancer patients. Current guidelines for RINV prevention recommend prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonist for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic radiotherapy regimens. Randomised trials have compared such antagonists with conventional antiemetics, and have demonstrated their efficacy and safety. Special consideration is needed for antiemetic treatment in certain patient groups, particularly the elderly and those with renal or hepatic impairment. Radiation oncologists should be aware of the effect on antiemetic treatment of factors such as comorbid conditions (particularly cardiovascular disease), polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions, and choose the agent with the lowest potential for additional complications. The most appropriate antiemetic treatment to improve patient compliance and quality of life should ideally combine proven efficacy with uncomplicated administration and convenient dosing regimens.     

Preventive effect of aprepitant, an oral NK₁ receptor antagonist, on acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for colorectal cancer

A standard therapeutic regimen of a 5-HT? receptor antagonist antiemetic agent+dexamethasone was administered as antiemetic therapy for 29 patients who received chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in the Department of Surgery at Gunma Saiseikai Maebashi Hospital, from January to March 2010. For 13 patients with delayed nausea, the therapy was changed to an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant+5-HT? receptor antagonist antiemetic agent+dexamethasone)to evaluate the preventive effect of aprepitant on acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. This aprepitant regimen produced a significant improvement in the primary endpoint, based on a complete response (CR) of no vomiting and no rescue treatment throughout the administration period, and in the secondary endpoint of CR in the delayed phase, with no delayed nausea. In addition, a tendency for improvement was found in other secondary endpoints: complete protection (CP) based on no vomiting, no rescue treatment, and no significant nausea throughout the observation period; no vomiting; and no significant nausea. These findings suggest that using aprepitant as an antiemetic therapy during chemotherapy for colorectal cancer may be effective for patients with nausea and vomiting that are intractable to standard therapeutic regimens.     

The antiemetic activity of high-dose metoclopramide and high-dose alizapride in combination with lorazepam in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

The antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide and lorazepam (MTC + L) versus alizapride and lorazepam (ALZ + L) was compared in 100 patients receiving chemotherapy, in a prospective randomized double-blind study. In highly emetogenic (HE) regimen (including platinum) patients received MTC 1 mg/kg or ALZ 3 mg/kg x 4 doses, and lorazepam 2.5 mg 30 min before therapy. In moderately emetogenic (ME) regimen patients received MTC 0.5 mg/kg or ALZ 1.5 mg kg x 3 doses, and lorazepam 2.5 mg 30 min before therapy. In both HE and ME regimen groups there was no statistically significant difference between MTC + L and ALZ + L treatments as regards the number of vomiting episodes, the duration of emesis and nausea, the intensity of nausea and side effects, but a statistically significant difference between treatments was found in the HE group where MTC-L was superior to ALZ + L in obtaining complete protection from vomiting (37 vs 11%, p = 0.05). No significant difference in side effects was observed.     

Efficacy of ondansetron against nausea and vomiting caused by dacarbazine-containing chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS. The antiemetic activity of ondansetron (Zofran, Glaxo Pharmaceuticals, Research Triangle Park, NC) was evaluated in 25 patients with recurrent melanoma who were treated sequentially with dacarbazine (DTIC), vinblastine, and cisplatin. The antiemetic regimen included ondansetron alone in 11 patients; ondansetron plus lorazepam (Ativan, Wyeth-Ayerst, Philadelphia, PA) in 9 patients; and ondansetron plus lorazepam plus metoclopramide (Reglan, A. H. Robins Co., Richmond, VA) in 5 patients. Twenty-one patients had no prior exposure to chemotherapy, whereas 4 patients had previously received the same chemotherapy regimen and had severe vomiting despite administration of standard antiemetics. RESULTS. The antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron was impressive. Administration of a single dose of 10 mg resulted in complete control of nausea and vomiting in 22 patients, and the remaining 3 patients had only mild vomiting. CONCLUSIONS. Ondansetron is highly effective in controlling the nausea and vomiting caused by dacarbazine.     

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Granisetron-Based versus Standard Antiemetic Regimens in Low-Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Hospital-based Perspective from Malaysia

Background: In a prospective cohort study of antiemetic therapy conducted in Malaysia, a total of 94patients received low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) with or without granisetron injections as the primaryprophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This study is a retrospective cost analysisof two antiemetic regimens from the payer perspective. Materials and Methods: This cost evaluation refers to2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drugacquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medicationswere evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1%vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfullytreated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.Results: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimenthan for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities wereincluded, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47).Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-basedregimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change ofantiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen. Conclusions: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesiscontrol, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis inLEC controversial.     

Neurokinin-1-receptor antagonists: a new approach in antiemetic therapy

Aprepitant (Emend), the first neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist (NK-1-RA), represents a new class of antiemetics. Aprepitant has been approved for the prevention and treatment of acute (0-24 h after chemotherapy) and delayed (1-5 days after chemotherapy) emesis resulting from cisplatin-based chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy in cisplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improves emesis protection in general and, in particular, in the delayed phase by approximately 20%. Results from a recently published study in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy suggest a benefit of aprepitant when combined with dexamethasone and a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist for the prevention of acute emesis, followed by aprepitant as a single agent in the prevention of delayed emesis. Altogether, the addition of aprepitant to the standard antiemetic regimen (5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone) significantly improves the protection against vomiting in the acute as well as in the delayed phase in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapies. Therefore, the combination of a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and aprepitant should be considered as a new standard antiemetic therapy.     

The oral neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin--the Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group.

PURPOSE: In early clinical trials with patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the neurokinin antagonist aprepitant significantly enhanced the efficacy of a standard antiemetic regimen consisting of a type-three 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was performed to establish definitively the superiority of the aprepitant regimen versus standard therapy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving cisplatin > or = 70 mg/m2 for the first time were given either standard therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; dexamethasone on days 2 to 4) or an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 to 3; dexamethasone on day 4). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) on days 1 to 5 postcisplatin, analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with complete response on days 1 to 5 was significantly higher in the aprepitant group (72.7% [n = 260] v 52.3% in the standard therapy group [n = 260]), as were the percentages on day 1, and especially on days 2 to 5 (P <.001 for all three comparisons). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard dual therapy, addition of aprepitant was generally well tolerated and provided consistently superior protection against CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.     

Betamethasone-dixyrazine combination versus high-dose metoclopramide as antiemetic treatment in doxorubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy

In a prospective randomized and double-blind cross-over study, a new antiemetic regimen consisting of betamethasone (1 x 8 mg) and dixyrazine (a phenothiazine derivative) (4 x 10 mg) was compared with a standard high-dose metoclopramide (4 x 1 mg/kg) schedule for antiemetic treatment in doxorubicin and cisplatin chemotherapy. 100 consecutive patients (62 without prior experience of chemotherapy and 38 with prior experience) entered the study and were followed during 1-4 courses of chemotherapy. Effect and side effect parameters were recorded on questionnaires for patients and nurses using the visual analog scale for quantification. The correlation between the two ways of recording (self-scoring versus recording by nursing staff) was very high, both for effect variables (nausea and vomiting) and the adverse reactions (sedation and extrapyramidal reactions). The median number of courses per patient was 3.0 (range 1-4) and altogether 299 courses were studied. Full emetic protection was achieved in 58% with betamethasone-dixyrazine and in 34% with high-dose metoclopramide regardless of prior patient experience or the cytostatic agents administered. With doxorubicin regimens, betamethasone-dixyrazine gave full protection in 80% compared to 40% for metoclopramide. Cisplatin regimens were a greater challenge and protection against nausea and vomiting was achieved only in 27% with betamethasone-dixyrazine and in 18% with metoclopramide. Adverse reactions were a significant problem with metoclopramide: restlessness 33%, akathisia 19%, parkinsonism 16%, and acute dystonia 3%. Sedation was the same with the two regimens (80%).     

Antiemetic efficacy of an oral suspension of granisetron plus dexamethasone and influence of quality of life on risk for nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVES: To assess the antiemetic efficacy of an oral suspension of granisetron/dexamethasone in patients receiving chemotherapy and to determine whether quality-of-life parameters influence the risk for postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting (PCNV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an open monocentric study, an oral suspension containing 2 mg granisetron and 16 mg (4 mg for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy) dexamethasone was administered to 43 chemotherapy-naive patients before highly (n = 16) or moderately (n = 27) emetogenic chemotherapy and on the 3 subsequent days (2 for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy). Emetic episodes were recorded and quality of life was assessed prior to each cycle with a questionnaire based on EORTC QLQ-30. RESULTS: In the group undergoing highly (moderately) emetogenic chemotherapy, complete control of acute vomiting was achieved in 60-72.7% (92.6-95.0%), and complete control of delayed vomiting in 37.5-40.0% (75.0-92.2%), of patients within the first 3 (5) cycles. The following quality-of-life parameters were significantly associated with PCNV: tiredness (RR = 1.3, p < 0.05), pain (RR = 1.5), impairment of daily life by pain (RR = 1.7), sensation of abdominal pressure and fullness (RR = 2.5), impairment of social activities (RR = 2.9). CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily oral administration of a suspension of granisetron/dexamethasone is an active prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting and compares favorably with data reported on intravenous administration. Quality-of-life parameters assessed pre-treatment could help to identify patients at high risk for nausea and vomiting so that antiemetic therapy can be tailored to individual patient risk.     

Antiemetics and its clinical evaluations]

Nausea and vomiting induced by anticancer agents are common problems associated with chemotherapy for cancer. Recent trials have examined a variety of antiemetics, representing several different classes of drugs. High dose metoclopramide provided the impetus for many of the current studies because of its effect against cisplatin induced vomiting. However, current regimens are not yet entirely effective in many patients receiving cisplatin or other highly emetogenic anticancer agents. A promising new class of antiemetics, 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists are undergoing clinical evaluations. Members of this class are easily and safely administered to patients receiving cisplatin or other emetogenic anticancer agents. These are highly active antiemetics, both prophylactic and interventional treatment. Lack of extrapyramidal reaction and other adverse effects associated with its use makes the drug a very attractive one. However, studies of antiemetics require consideration of methodologic issues that may not be of concern in trials of anticancer agents. The results of these studies can be affected by the patient population, the sample size, pharmacologic variables, the trial design, the method of analysis, etc. Recently, developments both in new-antiemetics and better ways of using the existing ones, lead us to cautious thought that nausea and vomiting due to cancer chemotherapy can be controlled substantially with benefit to the patients.