Abdullah A Alhifany1,2, Ali McBride3,4,5, Abdulaali R Almutairi3,6, Ejaz Cheema7, Alaa Shahbar8, Yasser Alatawi8, Adnan S Alharbi8, Hani Babiker5, Karen MacDonald9, Matti Aapro10, Ivo Abraham3,4,5,9,11. 1. Clinical Pharmacy Department, College of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. aahifany@uqu.edu.sa. 2. Center for Health Outcomes and Pharmaco-Economic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. aahifany@uqu.edu.sa. 3. Center for Health Outcomes and Pharmaco-Economic Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 5. University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA. 6. Saudi Food and Drug Authority, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 7. Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 8. Clinical Pharmacy Department, College of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. 9. Matrix45, Tucson, AZ, USA. 10. Genolier Cancer Centre, Clinique de Genolier, Genolier, Switzerland. 11. Department of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine-Tucson, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Olanzapine, neurokinin-1-receptor-antagonists (NK-1-RA), and thalidomide added to palonosetron + dexamethasone (PALO-DEX) have been evaluated in separate studies as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the prophylactic efficacy of these agents in combination with PALO-DEX. METHODS: PubMed, Medline/Ovid, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception through 22 Mar 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane methodology. A Bayesian network meta-analysis using random-effects models was used to asses complete response (CR) and rate of no nausea (RNN) in acute, delayed, and overall phases and were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI). Ranking probabilities of treatments were calculated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to identify the probability of a given treatment as the best option against the worst option. RESULTS: Nine RCTs involving two thousand nine hundred fifty-nine patients were included. The olanzapine-based regimen showed greater CR in the acute, delayed, and overall-phases versus the PALO-DEX regimen (OR = 3.97, 95% CrI = 1.02-19.13; OR = 5.62, 95% CrI = 1.66-28.58; OR = 4.79, 95% CrI = 1.40-24.02, respectively). Additionally, it showed greater RNN than the NK-1-RA-based and the PALO-DEX regimens in the delayed phase only (OR = 2.90, 95% CrI = 1.34-5.15; OR = 4.53, 95% CrI = 1.89-10.55, respectively). Olanzapine-, NK-1-RA-, and thalidomide-based regimens did not differ in CR in the three phases. SUCRA probabilities ranked the olanzapine-based regimen as the best option in terms of CR and RNN, while ranking the NK-1-RA-based regimens as the second best option in terms of CR throughout the three phases. CONCLUSION: Based on the data included in the analyses, there is insufficient evidence to support adding thalidomide or NK-1-RA to PALO-DEX in preventing CINV induced by HEC. However, adding olanzapine to PALO-DEX achieves better CR and RNN. Olanzapine side-effects and the absence of direct comparisons explain why some guidelines are cautious in suggesting the use of olanzapine.
BACKGROUND:Olanzapine, neurokinin-1-receptor-antagonists (NK-1-RA), and thalidomide added to palonosetron + dexamethasone (PALO-DEX) have been evaluated in separate studies as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the prophylactic efficacy of these agents in combination with PALO-DEX. METHODS: PubMed, Medline/Ovid, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception through 22 Mar 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane methodology. A Bayesian network meta-analysis using random-effects models was used to asses complete response (CR) and rate of no nausea (RNN) in acute, delayed, and overall phases and were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI). Ranking probabilities of treatments were calculated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to identify the probability of a given treatment as the best option against the worst option. RESULTS: Nine RCTs involving two thousand nine hundred fifty-nine patients were included. The olanzapine-based regimen showed greater CR in the acute, delayed, and overall-phases versus the PALO-DEX regimen (OR = 3.97, 95% CrI = 1.02-19.13; OR = 5.62, 95% CrI = 1.66-28.58; OR = 4.79, 95% CrI = 1.40-24.02, respectively). Additionally, it showed greater RNN than the NK-1-RA-based and the PALO-DEX regimens in the delayed phase only (OR = 2.90, 95% CrI = 1.34-5.15; OR = 4.53, 95% CrI = 1.89-10.55, respectively). Olanzapine-, NK-1-RA-, and thalidomide-based regimens did not differ in CR in the three phases. SUCRA probabilities ranked the olanzapine-based regimen as the best option in terms of CR and RNN, while ranking the NK-1-RA-based regimens as the second best option in terms of CR throughout the three phases. CONCLUSION: Based on the data included in the analyses, there is insufficient evidence to support adding thalidomide or NK-1-RA to PALO-DEX in preventing CINV induced by HEC. However, adding olanzapine to PALO-DEX achieves better CR and RNN. Olanzapine side-effects and the absence of direct comparisons explain why some guidelines are cautious in suggesting the use of olanzapine.
Authors: F Roila; A Molassiotis; J Herrstedt; M Aapro; R J Gralla; E Bruera; R A Clark-Snow; L L Dupuis; L H Einhorn; P Feyer; P J Hesketh; K Jordan; I Olver; B L Rapoport; J Roscoe; C H Ruhlmann; D Walsh; D Warr; M van der Wetering Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ronald Chow; Leonard Chiu; Rudolph Navari; Steven Passik; Nicholas Chiu; Marko Popovic; Henry Lam; Mark Pasetka; Edward Chow; Carlo DeAngelis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rebecca M Turner; Jonathan Davey; Mike J Clarke; Simon G Thompson; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2012-03-29 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: P J Hesketh; G Rossi; G Rizzi; M Palmas; A Alyasova; I Bondarenko; A Lisyanskaya; R J Gralla Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: M Aapro; H Rugo; G Rossi; G Rizzi; M E Borroni; I Bondarenko; T Sarosiek; C Oprean; S Cardona-Huerta; V Lorusso; M Karthaus; L Schwartzberg; S Grunberg Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 32.976