Delayed emesis: incidence, pattern, prognostic factors and optimal treatment

Roila, Fausto; Donati, D.; Tamberi, Stefano; Margutti, Guido

doi:10.1007/s005200100295

Cited by 80 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For patients with cancer who receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), 5‐hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5‐HT 3 ) receptor antagonists (RAs) have demonstrated efficacy in CINV control during the acute phase (≤24 hours). However, the utility of 5‐HT 3 RAs with or without dexamethasone for controlling CINV in the delayed phase (>24‐120 hours) is limited 1, 3…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of the neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist rolapitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin‐based chemotherapy

Hesketh

Schnadig

Schwartzberg

et al. 2016

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDRolapitant, a novel neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist, provided effective protection against chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a randomized, double‐blind phase 3 trial of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimen. The current analysis explored the efficacy and safety of rolapitant in preventing CINV in a subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin.METHODSPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant (180 mg) or a placebo 1 to 2 hours before chemotherapy administration; all patients received oral granisetron (2 mg) on days 1 to 3 and oral dexamethasone (20 mg) on day 1. A post hoc analysis examined the subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin in cycle 1. The efficacy endpoints were as follows: complete response (CR), no emesis, no nausea, no significant nausea, complete protection, time to first emesis or use of rescue medication, and no impact on daily life.RESULTSIn the subgroup administered carboplatin‐based chemotherapy (n = 401), a significantly higher proportion of patients in the rolapitant group versus the control group achieved a CR in the overall phase (0‐120 hours; 80.2% vs 64.6%; P < .001) and in the delayed phase (>24‐120 hours; 82.3% vs 65.6%; P < .001) after chemotherapy administration. Superior responses were also observed by the measures of no emesis, no nausea, and complete protection in the overall and delayed phases and by the time to first emesis or use of rescue medication. The incidence of treatment‐emergent adverse events was similar for the rolapitant and control groups.CONCLUSIONSRolapitant provided superior CINV protection to patients receiving carboplatin‐based chemotherapy in comparison with the control. These results support rolapitant use as part of the antiemetic regimen in carboplatin‐treated patients. Cancer 2016;122:2418–2425. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of the neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist rolapitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin‐based chemotherapy

Hesketh

Schnadig

Schwartzberg

et al. 2016

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike response rates to cisplatin, which have been characterized well, nausea and emesis control rates in patients who receive alkylating agents have been described less. 9 In the regimens that we studied that were classified as moderately emetogenic, those containing higher doses of cytarabine or methotrexate also were associated with lower complete control rates. Because of the inadequate response to ondansetron alone, subsequent patients who received high-dose cytarabine also received dexamethasone, which led to an improvement in CP from 44% to 75% during the first course of chemotherapy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Acute and delayed nausea and emesis control in pediatric oncology patients

Holdsworth

Raisch²,

Frost

2006

Cancer

101

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here, we report on an isolated pliopithecid M3/ (IPS35028) from locality ACM/C3‐B2 (12.0 Ma, MN7) of the late Middle Miocene stratigraphic series of Abocador de Can Mata (ACM, Vallès‐Penedès Basin, NE Iberian Peninsula). This tooth is about 0.2 million years older than the remains of Pliopithecus canmatensis (11.8–11.7 ma), recorded from several localities from the ACM series. The unusual occlusal features of IPS35028, together with the lack of homologous material for several pliopithecid species, preclude a precise taxonomic attribution of the C3‐B2 specimen, which does not fit the morphology of any known pliopithecid M3/. In particular, although an attribution to P. canmatensis would seem reasonable on the basis of size, identical geographic provenance, and similar age, the morphology of IPS35028 appears too primitive compared to the M1/ and M2/ of the former taxon. Instead, the C3‐B2 pliopithecid displays several primitive features shared with the dionysopithecine Dionysopithecus and the pliopithecine Pliopithecus piveteaui. It therefore seems more likely that IPS35028 represents a previously unknown pliopithecid taxon, although a formal taxonomic recognition of its probable distinct status is not advisable, given the scarcity of the currently available material. Alternatively, this taxon might be more closely related to small‐bodied African catarrhines (such as dendropithecids). However, the morphology of the ACM specimen is not particularly similar to that of the M3/ of these African taxa. Hence, based on age and geographic provenance, an attribution of IPS35028 to the Pliopithecidae is favored here. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2012. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

“…In the latter case, combination therapy with setrons and dexamethasone or antidopaminergics (domperidone, levosulpiride, metoclopramide) may be superior to monotherapy. 63 The prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting with various agents, including antidopaminergic prokinetics, is under review by the Cochrane Library. Antidopaminergics that do not cross the blood-brain barrier (domperidone) can be specifically used to prevent l-DOPA-induced emesis in patients with Parkinson's disease, as they prevent the stimulatory action of dopamine (derived from l-DOPA metabolism) at D 2 receptors in the area postrema, which is located outside the barrier.…”

Section: Use As Anti-emeticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical implications of enteric and central D₂ receptor blockade by antidopaminergic gastrointestinal prokinetics

Tonini

Cipollina

Poluzzi

et al. 2004

Aliment Pharmacol Ther

252

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYAntidopaminergic gastrointestinal prokinetics (bromopride, clebopride, domperidone, levosulpiride and metoclopramide) have been exploited clinically for the management of motor disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract, including functional dyspepsia, gastric stasis of various origins and emesis. The prokinetic effect of these drugs is mediated through the blockade of enteric (neuronal and muscular) inhibitory D 2 receptors. The pharmacological profiles of the marketed compounds differ in terms of their molecular structure, affinity at D 2 receptors, ability to interact with other receptor systems [5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT 3 ) and 5-HT 4 receptors for metoclopramide; 5-HT 4 receptors for levosulpiride) and ability to permeate the bloodbrain barrier (compared with the other compounds, domperidone does not easily cross the barrier). It has been suggested that the serotonergic (5-HT 4 ) component of some antidopaminergic prokinetics may enhance their therapeutic efficacy in gastrointestinal disorders, such as functional dyspepsia and diabetic gastroparesis. The antagonism of central D 2 receptors may lead to both therapeutic (e.g. anti-emetic effect due to D 2 receptor blockade in the area postrema) and adverse (including hyperprolactinaemia and extrapyramidal dystonic reactions) effects. As the pituitary (as well as the area postrema) is outside the blood-brain barrier, hyperprolactinaemia is a side-effect occurring with all antidopaminergic prokinetics, although to different extents. Extrapyramidal reactions are most commonly observed with compounds crossing the blood-brain barrier, although with some differences amongst the various agents. Prokinetics with a high dissociation constant compared with that of dopamine at the D 2 receptor (i.e. compounds that bind loosely to D 2 receptors in the nigrostriatal pathway) elicit fewer extrapyramidal signs and symptoms. A knowledge of central and peripheral D 2 receptor pharmacology can help the clinician to choose between the antidopaminergic prokinetics to obtain a more favourable risk/ benefit ratio.

show abstract

Delayed emesis: incidence, pattern, prognostic factors and optimal treatment

Cited by 80 publications

References 27 publications

Efficacy of the neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist rolapitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin‐based chemotherapy

Efficacy of the neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist rolapitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin‐based chemotherapy

Acute and delayed nausea and emesis control in pediatric oncology patients

Clinical implications of enteric and central D₂ receptor blockade by antidopaminergic gastrointestinal prokinetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Delayed emesis: incidence, pattern, prognostic factors and optimal treatment

Cited by 80 publications

References 27 publications

Efficacy of the neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist rolapitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin‐based chemotherapy

Efficacy of the neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist rolapitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin‐based chemotherapy

Acute and delayed nausea and emesis control in pediatric oncology patients

Clinical implications of enteric and central D2 receptor blockade by antidopaminergic gastrointestinal prokinetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Clinical implications of enteric and central D₂ receptor blockade by antidopaminergic gastrointestinal prokinetics