Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NursingAnswers.net.
In patients with advanced disease, nausea and vomiting are common and distressing symptoms. Established antiemetics frequently result in good symptom control. However, a number of patients present with intractable symptoms. A newer class of antiemetics, the neurokinin-1 antagonists, addressing a different type of receptors in the emetogenic pathway, have shown additional antiemetic benefit in chemotherapy and postoperatively.
To evaluate the effectiveness of NK1-receptor antagonists in the management of nausea and vomiting in advanced disease.
Data sources and search strategy
The electronic databases Embase, Medline and PsycINFO were searched using the basic search strategy (“neurokinin-1 antagonist”) AND (“nausea” OR “vomiting”), modified for each database.
Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort/case-control studies, case series and single case reports of NK1-receptor antagonists for the treatment of nausea or vomiting or both, in any advanced disease setting.
The search strategy identified 1702 titles of which one study was obtained in full and then excluded. The hand search revealed five titles as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria: One RCT protocol that was withdrawn before enrolment, one study that could not be obtained, 3 more cases that had to be excluded based on study type. Therefore, no studies could be included in this review.
There is insufficient evidence for the use of NK1-antagonists for the management of nausea and vomiting in advanced disease. To guide our clinical decision in this patient population, we need better evidence of effectiveness of NK1-antagonists.
In patients with advanced disease, nausea and vomiting are common and distressing symptoms. The prevalence of nausea and vomiting in cancer and non-cancer palliative care patients has been reported to be between 6-68%, nausea generally having a higher prevalence.1-7
Nausea is most prevalent in gynaecological and gastrointestinal cancer, 4 and has shown to be an independent prognostic factor for survival in advanced cancer patients; 3 Jiménez et al. identified nausea and vomiting together as a gastro intestinal symptom cluster in 23% of their patients with advanced cancer.8
Pathophysiology of nausea and vomiting
Vomiting (or emesis) is the expulsion of gastric contents through the mouth, caused by a forceful and sustained contraction of the abdominal muscles and diaphragm.9
Nausea is an unpleasant feeling of the need to vomit that often accompanies emesis and is associated with autonomic symptoms like pallor, cold sweats, tachycardia, and diarrhoea.10
Why do we experience nausea and vomiting?
From an evolutionary perspective, vomiting acts as important mechanism of protection against food poisoning. Furthermore, nausea seems to lead to food aversion in order to avoid future ingestion. 11,12 The vomiting reflex is present in many species, but not in all. Several common laboratory animals (e.g., rat, mouse, guinea pig and rabbit) lack this emetic response.11,13
Nausea and vomiting are two distinct but related entities.13,14 A variety of stimuli can trigger nausea and vomiting, including many forms of medical treatment. 15,16 In advanced cancer or progressive disease we typically see multifactorial causes of nausea and vomiting.10,17,18
What is known about the neurophysiology of the vomiting reflex mainly comes from animal models of the ferret, the dog and the cat 13,19,20 although there have been studies in humans.21,22
Less evidence exists with regard to nausea, as it is difficult to establish animal models due to the subjective nature of the symptom.13 However, nausea has been associated with increased levels of anti-diuretic hormone and oxytocin as well as gastric dysrhythmia. 11,13 The neural system seems to be at least partly distinct from the emetic pathways 13 there is for example an increased activity of the inferior frontal gyrus associated of the human cerebral cortex with nausea.21
Physiology of the emetogenic pathways
Vomiting is a complex somato-visceral process, presumably coordinated by the vomiting centre or `vomiting pattern generator’.23 The vomiting centre coordinates input from at least 4 pathways, then resulting in a the somatic and autonomous efferent output of the vomiting reflex 10,14,24-27 (Figure 1).
The vomiting centre (diffusely distributed neurons, rather than a well localised area)19 is located in the third ventricle, fully within the blood brain barrier and adjacent to centres that are responsible for respiration and salivation.10 The nucleus of the tractus solitarius (NTS) forms part of the vomiting centre.27
Figure 1. Pathways and neurotransmitters involved in nausea and vomiting: Adapted from multiple sources 14,24-27
CTZ = chemoreceptor trigger zone; NTS = nucleus of the tractus solitarius; CTX= chemo therapy, RTX = radiotherapy; Receptors: Achm = muscarinic cholinergic; H1 = histamine type 1; GABA= GABA = gamma amino butyric acid; D2 = dopamine type 2; 5HT2, 3, 4 = serotonin receptor subtypes 2,3 and 4; Î¼ = Î¼ opioid; NK1 = neurokinin-1; ···· incompletely understood;
The chemoreceptor trigger zone (CTZ)
Emesis is often chemically induced.27 The main CTZ is located outside the blood brain barrier in the area postrema at the bottom of the 4th ventricle and is sensitive to emetic agents such as high calcium levels, urea, morphine, and a variety of cytotoxic agents in the blood and cerebro-spinal fluid.10,27
The cerebro-cortical pathway
Cerebro-cortical influences of vomiting and nausea include input from the five senses, fear, anxiety, learned behaviour after experiencing chemotherapy, but also direct effects such as meningeal irritation and raised intracranial pressure.26 Descending fibres from the higher centres may stimulate or inhibit the vomiting centre.14
The vestibular pathway
Triggers for nausea and vomiting are inputs from motion and labyrinth disorders or vestibular damage by tumours or drugs.26,27 The projections from the vestibular system are incompletely understood.14
The main input from the periphery is caused by mechanoreceptors (which detect distension or direct invasion in the GI tract) and chemoreceptors (which detect acids, irritants and probably bacterial toxins) in the gastrointestinal tract and liver.18,28 There are also afferent impulses from the heart, pharyngeal stimulation and taste through the vagal nerve, splanchnic nerves, glossopharyngeal nerves and the chorda tympani of the facial nerve. The impulses are mainly travelling to the nucleus of the tractus solitarius.26,27
Principles of therapy
The current paradigm in palliative care is to base the antiemetic treatment on a careful history, focused clinical examination and appropriate investigations.14,29,30
This approach not only helps excluding reversible causes (e.g., hypercalcemia, hyponatremia and infection) 31, but also enables identifying the presumed underlying aetiology (e.g., gastric stasis, biochemical causes, raised intracranial pressure, and ileus.9,15,30
This presumed aetiology can then guide the choice of antiemetic based on both, the neuropharmacology of the emetogenic pathway, 14,27,29 and the current understanding of the affinity of drugs to different receptors 14,32 (Table 1). This generally is supplemented by non-pharmacological treatments.18,29
If first line treatment fails, there is a rationale to add other drugs acting on complementary receptors 26,33 or antiemetics with a broad spectrum of pathways covered.34,35
However, there is also a second equally effective, empiric approach to treatment 24,33 that might be preferred, especially near death, where investigations identifying underlying aetiology might not be warranted any longer.36
Table 1. Receptor affinity of antiemetics
Putative site of action
central + peripheral
Adapted from Bausewein and Werni-Kurik37,38 ; a adapted from Glare9; CTZ = chemoreceptor trigger zone; VC = vomiting centre; GIT = gastrointestinal tract; Vestib. = vestibular apparatus
Effectiveness of current treatment
Using different classes of established antiemetics results in good symptom control in up to 93% of palliative care patients.15,17,30 However, that leaves a number of patients that present with intractable symptoms 26,30 and the management of these patients can be challenging.27 For those patients it would be desirable to have additional means of treatment available.35
Neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists
A newer class of antiemetics, the neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists 39 have shown significant additional antiemetic benefit in highly emetogenic chemotherapy 40,41 as well as postoperatively 42 and are included in current international guidelines.43 From a pathophysiological perspective NK1 antagonists address a different type of receptors in the emetogenic pathway.9 These receptors are widely distributed and therefore NK1-antagonists have been referred to as broad spectrum antiemetics.14,39 Some authors in the last years suggested that good quality studies on NK1-antagonists should be performed to evaluate the effectiveness in a palliative care population. 14,17,29
Outside of chemotherapy-induced and post-operative nausea and vomiting, previous systematic reviews on the effectiveness of antiemetic treatment by Glare (2004) 17 and Davis, (2010) 33 could not show any evidence for the use of NK1 antagonists. Both reviews focused on cancer patients only and were limited to the English language. In addition, they paid no specific attention to NK1receptor antagonists in their search strategy and only included studies until 2008.33
More than two years later, the purpose of this review is to assess the effectiveness of NK1 receptor antagonists in controlling nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced disease.
This systematic review followed current standards from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.44 The assessment of studies was based on level of evidence and reported outcome.
Definition of advanced disease:
Advanced disease:1,45 Active and progressive illness with a limited prognosis (the prognostication relates to different factors such as symptoms, performance status and disease trajectory and therefore is disease specific), or being in hospice or palliative care.
The search strategy was adapted from Glare.17
EMBASE 1980 to 2011 Week 15
Ovid MEDLINE (R) 1948 to April Week 1 2011
PsycINFO 1806 to April Week 2 2011
Basic search terms for electronic databases:
Neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist AND
Nausea OR vomiting
The search terms were adapted for each database, where possible using appropriate exploded Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. The search was updated on 17 April 2011. For the detailed search strategy, see appendix 1.
To identify any articles missed by the electronic database I search the following additional sources were searched or contacted:
The drug information of Emendâ„¢ (aprepitant)46 and as a result
The local branch of the manufacturer of Emendâ„¢, Merck-Sharp&Dohme in Austria and a pharmacist (C.R.) with a palliative care background were contacted.
The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify unpublished studies using the individual NK1-antagonists as search terms (aprepitant, fosaprepitant, casopitant, netupitant, rolapitant, vestipitant, ezlopitant, orvepitant, lanepitant and dapitant).
The bibliographies of articles retrieved and cited for this review, and the Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine (4th edition)14 were hand searched.
The bulletin board of ©Palliativedrugs.com was searched using the search term aprepitant.47
Due to time constraints, searching additional databases, hand searching the tables of content of major palliative and oncology journals as well as contacting more experts in the field was not possible.
Screening search results:
If the title of the study appeared relevant, the abstract was screened for the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:
1. The study involved humans
2. The study participants had advanced disease
3. The study contained a pharmacological intervention of NK1-receptor antagonists aimed at controlling nausea and or vomiting
4. The study objective was not primarily aimed at evaluating the control of nausea and vomiting caused by emetogenic chemotherapy (CINV), or radiation therapy (RINV), or the control of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)
The full article was retrieved for detailed evaluation only if it was published in English or German and met all of these criteria or, if the abstract seemed potentially relevant, but was inconclusive with regard to inclusion or exclusion criteria.
Types of studies for inclusion in review:
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
Well-designed cohort/case-control studies and
Case series and single case reports
Clinical examples and expert opinions were excluded
Data was extracted into a table with the following headings: reference, study design, level of evidence, number of patients, setting /population, intervention, duration, reported outcome, reason for exclusion.
Level of evidence:
The level of evidence was graded as followed (adapted from Davis et al. ) 33:
Table 2. Levels of evidence
Evidence from RCT (randomised controlled trials)
Evidence from single-drug prospective studies or in which single-drug activity could be determined
Evidence from prospective etiologic guideline trials or multiple drug combination studies in which single-drug activity could not be determined
Evidence from cohort studies, retrospective studies, case series, or single-case reports
Not graded as evidence: clinical examples, expert opinions
The quality of RCTs (randomization, blinding, withdrawals and dropouts) would have been determined by the criteria published by Jadad et al..48
Given the results of previous systematic reviews on nausea and vomiting in cancer patients 17,33 it was very unlikely to get sufficient data for quantitative analysis. But even with sufficient data it would have been beyond the scope of this limited review due to time constraints.
The initial search strategy for the electronic databases Embase, Medline and PsycINFO produced a list of 1702 citations of which only two abstracts appeared relevant. Both papers were identical so one was excluded as duplicate prior to obtaining it in full.49 It was a case study of severe intractable vomiting due to refractory diabetic gastroparesis in a young woman with poorly controlled diabetes. The study was excluded based on the disease trajectory, which did not meet the definition of advanced disease.
Figure 2. PRISMA chart
Other sources revealed five titles as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria.
One study was a reference in the side effect section of the Austrian drug information sheet of Emend(TM) (aprepitant), referred to as a non-CINV (chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting)/non-PONV (postoperative Nausea and Vomiting) study where apparently one case of a serious side effect was reported.46 Contacting the manufacturer and contacting a pharmacist with a palliative care background could not produce the study within the given timeframe and the study was excluded as unobtainable.
In the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform one study protocol of a randomised clinical trial by the Vanderbilt-Ingram-Cancer-Center was identified.50 It was a protocol for a pilot study to compare the effectiveness of aprepitant versus ondansetron in treating nausea and vomiting caused by opioids. This study was withdrawn prior to enrolment without giving a reason and therefore was excluded.
Searching the bibliographies of the retrieved and cited articles and the Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine (4th edition)14 resulted in no further studies.
The bulletin board of ©Palliativedrugs.com47 however, revealed three messages containing accounts of patient with advanced disease, successfully receiving aprepitant for nausea. With very limited information available on the individual cases, these messages have been considered clinical examples and therefore had to be excluded based on study type.
Therefore no studies could be included in this review (for details of the excluded studies see appendix 3).
Summary of evidence
Despite the longstanding call of some authors for good quality research in the advanced disease population, 14,17,29 this review still failed to identify studies testing the effectiveness of NK1 receptor antagonists in the management of nausea and vomiting in advanced disease.
Only anecdotal accounts from individual palliative care physicians sharing their experience in an internet forum could be found.47 Although good results were reported, the main rationale for the off label use of aprepitant for patients with intractable nausea is inferring its potential effectiveness and safety from high level evidence in chemotherapy or postoperatively.41 Those studies only showed short term safety. However, as NK1 antagonists initially were studied for their anti-depressive properties, data of good tolerance of treatment exists for up to 8 weeks duration.51 It is interesting, that all three reported cases are about successful treatment of nausea only, which is often more difficult to treat in chemotherapy.40 A potential difference could be the greater role of anticipated nausea in patients receiving chemotherapy.52,53,54 One aspect that needs special consideration in NK-1 antagonists is their influence on cytochrome P450, causing potential interaction with a number of other drugs.39,55,56
The single case report of a 31 years old woman with diabetic gastroparesis showed that the treatment in this individual case was both effective and well tolerated for 4 months, but it was no case of advanced disease.49
A study protocol of an open label randomised controlled trial by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center for a pilot study (comparing the effectiveness of aprepitant versus ondansetron in treating nausea and vomiting caused by opioids in patients with cancer) had the potential for being a good quality study, but was withdrawn prior to enrolment without giving a reason.50 The significance of this is unclear. With more time at hand, it would have been possible to contact the Center for more information.
With this striking lack of evidence after more than ten years of considerable research on neurokinin receptor antagonists 57 one has to question, whether it is even feasible to attempt treatment with NK1-antagonists in patients with advanced disease.
Based on our current knowledge of the patho-physiology, in three out of the four presumed emetogenic pathways and in the vomiting centre as the common final pathway, we do find NK1 receptors 12,25 (Figure 1). This in fact supports the assumption of a potential antiemetic effect.
What else could explain the lack of evidence? It is acknowledged, that it is more difficult to perform clinical studies in the palliative care population due to ethical and practical difficulties.58 From an industry point of view, the market is probably too small to be of interest. On the other hand for many facilities the high costs compared to standard treatment could be prohibitive, 25,59 especially in the community setting. Considering the costs caused by untreated nausea and vomiting however, it not only would make a huge difference for the individual patient but potentially could be cost effective as well.60
The main limitation of this review is that, due to time constraints, additional electronic databases, extensive hand search and contact of experts were excluded. In Palliative Care a number of publications might not be included in the searched electronic databases and therefore studies might have been missed.61 The problem of publication bias for non – RCT’s also has to be considered. Another limitation was the single author review as well as the restriction to studies published in English or German. Then again, Pan et al. reported in their systematic review that foreign languages literature more often consisted of general overviews rather than original reports 62 and the effect probably could also be mitigated by contacting experts.
Implications for clinical practice and future research
If costs are not prohibitive, for very selected cases of intractable nausea and vomiting unresponsive to any conventional antiemetic treatment/regimen, it might be worth considering off label use of NK1-antagonists as a last option, 26 entirely based on pathophysiological considerations and good evidence and safety profile in other indications. Ideally, those results should be published as a case report or a case series.
Additionally, NK1 antagonists are currently studied for a variety of indications including overactive bladder, pruritus and broad spectrum antitumor activity.63,64-66 This could produce at least weak evidence as a ‘by-product’.
There is insufficient evidence for the use of NK1 antagonists for the management of nausea and vomiting in advanced disease. Nevertheless, evidence of effectiveness is needed to guide our clinical decision in this patient population. The three clinical examples of successful treatment of nausea, and the case report of vomiting in diabetic gastroparesis could help to formulate relevant research questions. Well designed multicenter trials 14 with good outcome measures, or n=1 trials could be potential approaches for addressing these questions.
1 Solano JP, Gomes B, Higginson IJ. A Comparison of Symptom Prevalence in Far Advanced Cancer, AIDS, Heart Disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Renal Disease. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2006;31: 58-69.
2 Teunissen SC, Wesker W, Kruitwagen C, Haes HC de, Voest EE, Graeff A de. Symptom Prevalence in Patients with Incurable Cancer: A Systematic Review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2007;34: 94-104.
3 Teunissen SC, Graeff A de, Haes HC de, Voest EE. Prognostic significance of symptoms of hospitalised advanced cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer 2006;42: 2510-6.
4 Vainio A. Prevalence of symptoms among patients with advanced cancer: An international collaborative study. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 1996;12: 3-10.
5 Greaves J, Glare P, Kristjanson LJ, Stockler M, Tattersall MHN. Undertreatment of nausea and other symptoms in hospitalized cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2009;17: 461-4.
6 Conil C, Verger E, Henriquez I, Saiz N, Espier M, Lugo F, et al. Symptom prevalence in the last week of life. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 1997;14: 328-31.
7 Morita T, Tsunoda J, Inoue S, Chihara S. Contributing Factors to Physical Symptoms in Terminally-Ill Cancer Patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 1999;18: 338-46.
8 Jiménez A, Madero R, Alonso A, Martínez-Marín V, Vilches Y, Martínez B, et al. Symptom Clusters in Advanced Cancer. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2011.
9 Glare PA, Dunwoodie D, Clark K, Ward A, Yates P, Ryan S, et al. Treatment of Nausea and Vomiting in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients. Drugs 2008;68: 2575-90.
10 Bruera E, Higginson I, Ripamonti C, Gunten C von. Textbook of palliative medicine. London: Hodder Arnold, op. 2006. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/494433430.
11 Horn C. Why is the neurobiology of nausea and vomiting so important? Appetite 2007.
12 Andrews PLR, Naylor RJ, Joss RA. Neuropharmacology of emesis and its relevance to anti-emetic therapy. Supportive Care in Cancer 1998;6: 197-203.
13 Andrews PLR, Horn CC. Signals for nausea and emesis: Implications for models of upper gastrointestinal diseases. Autonomic Neuroscience 2006;125: 100-15.
14 Hanks GWC. Oxford textbook of palliative medicine. 4 ed. Oxford ;, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
15 Bentley A, Boyd K. Use of clinical pictures in the management of nausea and vomiting: a prospective audit. Palliative Medicine 2001;15: 247-53.
16 Morrow GR, Roscoe JA, Hickok JT, Andrews PLR, Matteson S. Nausea and emesis: evidence for a biobehavioral perspective. Support Care Cancer 2002;10: 96-105.
17 Glare P, Pereira G, Kristjanson LJ, Tattersall MHN, Stockler M. Systematic review of the efficacy of antiemetics in the treatment of nausea in patients with far-advanced cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer 2004;12: 432-40.
18 Rhodes VA, McDaniel RW. Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching: Complex Problems in Palliative Care. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2001;51: 232-48.
19 Miller AD, Wilson V. Vomiting center reanalyzed: an electrical stimulation study. Brain Research 1983;270: 154-8.
20 Tattersall F. Tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonists act centrally to inhibit emesis induced by the chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin in ferrets. Neuropharmacology 1996;35: 1121-9.
21 Miller AD, Rowley HA, Roberts TPL, Kucharczyk J. Human Cortical Activity during Vestibular- and Drug-Induced Nausea Detected Using MSI. Ann NY Acad Sci 1996;781: 670-2.
22 Bergstrom M. Human positron emission tomography studies of brain neurokinin 1 receptor occupancy by aprepitant. Biological Psychiatry 2004;55: 1007-12.
23 Hornby P. Central neurocircuitry associated with emesis. The American Journal of Medicine 2001;111: 106-12.
24 Harris DG. Nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer. British Medical Bulletin 2010;96: 175-85.
25 Twycross R. Palliativedrugs.com ©: Palliative care formulary. http://www.palliativedrugs.com/anti-emetics.html (accessed 3 Apr 2011).
26 Wood GJ, Shega JW, Lynch B, Roenn JH von. Management of Intractable Nausea and Vomiting in Patients at the End of Life: “I Was Feeling Nauseous All of the Time . . . Nothing Was Working”. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 2007;298: 1196-207.
27 Sykes N, Edmonds P, Wiles J. Management of advanced disease. 4 ed. London, New York: Arnold; Distributed in the U.S.A. by Oxford University Press, 2004.
28 Pleuvry BJ. Physiology and pharmacology of nausea and vomiting: Perioperative Care/Physiology. Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine 2009;10: 597-601.
29 Mannix K. Palliation of nausea and vomiting in malignancy. Clin Med 2006;6: 144-7.
30 Stephenson J, Davies A. An assessment of aetiology-based guidelines for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer 2006;14: 348-53.
31 Baines MJ. ABC of palliative care. Nausea, vomiting, and intestinal obstruction. British Medical Journal 1997;315: 1148-50.
32 Peroutka S, Snyder S. Antiemetics: Neurotransmitter Receptor Binding Predicts Therapeutic Actions. The Lancet 1982;319: 658-9.
33 Davis MP, Hallerberg G. A Systematic Review of the Treatment of Nausea and/or Vomiting in Cancer Unrelated to Chemotherapy or Radiation. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2010;39: 756-67.
34 Edwards CM. Chemotherapy induced emesis–mechanisms and treatment: a review. J R Soc Med 1988;81: 658-62.
35 Horn CC. Is there a need to identify new anti-emetic drugs?: Gastrointestinal diseases / Skin disorders. Drug Discovery Today: Therapeutic Strategies 2007;4: 183-7.
36 Sik Kim Ang, Shoemaker LK, Davis MP. Nausea and Vomiting in Advanced Cancer. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine 2010;27: 219-25.
37 Bausewein C, Roller S, Voltz R. Leitfaden Palliativmedizin – Palliative Care. 3 ed. München [u.a.]: Urban und Fischer, 2007. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/180159022.
38 Werni-Kourik M, ed. Palliativmedizin: Lehrbuch für Ärzte, psychosoziale Berufe und Pflegepersonen. 1 ed. Bremen ;, London, Boston, Mass: UNI-MED, 2009. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/434519420.
39 Prommer E. Aprepitant (EMEND): The Role of Substance P in Nausea and Vomiting. J. Of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy 2005;19: 31-9.
40 Warr DG, Grunberg SM, Gralla RJ, Hesketh PJ, Roila F, Wit R de, et al. The oral NK1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Pooled data from 2 randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trials. European Journal of Cancer 2005;41: 1278-85.
41 Hartrick CT, Tang Y, Hunstad D, Pappas J, Muir K, Pestano C, et al. Aprepitant vs. Multimodal Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting following Extended-Release Epidural Morphine. Pain Practice 2010;10: 245-8.
42 Diemunsch P, Apfel C, Gan TJ, Candiotti K, Philip BK, Chelly J, et al. Preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: post hoc analysis of pooled data from two randomized active-controlled trials of aprepitant*. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23: 2559-65.
43 Roila F, Herrstedt J, Aapro MS, Gralla RJ, Einhorn LH, Ballatori E, et al. Guideline update for MASCC and ESMO in the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: results of the Perugia consensus conference. Annals of Oncology 2010;21: v232.
44 Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 2009. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/498971582.
45 Bausewein C, Farquhar M, Booth S, Gysels M, Higginson IJ. Measurement of breathlessness in advanced disease: A systematic review. Respiratory Medicine 2007;101: 399-410.
46 Ã-sterreichischer Apothekerverlag. Austria Codex: Fachinformation (drug information sheet) EMEND 80mg Hartkapseln, Stand 2010. http://www.pharmazie.com/graphic/A/37/0-90737.pdf (accessed 25 Apr 2011).
47 Twycross R, Wilcock A. © palliativedrugs.com, 2
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: