-
Drugs in Context 2017The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, an oral fixed combination netupitant (NETU, 300 mg) and palonosetron (PA, 0.5 mg) compared with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, an oral fixed combination netupitant (NETU, 300 mg) and palonosetron (PA, 0.5 mg) compared with aprepitant and palonosetron (APPA) or palonosetron (PA) alone, to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing treatment with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) in the UK.
SCOPE
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were undertaken to compare NEPA with currently recommended anti-emetics. Relative effectiveness was estimated over the acute (day 1) and overall treatment (days 1-5) phases, taking complete response (CR, no emesis and no rescue medication) and complete protection (CP, CR and no more than mild nausea [VAS scale <25 mm]) as primary efficacy outcomes. A three-health-state Markov cohort model, including CP, CR and incomplete response (no CR) for HEC and MEC, was constructed. A five-day time horizon and UK NHS perspective were adopted. Transition probabilities were obtained by combining the response rates of CR and CP from NEPA trials and odds ratios from the meta-analysis. Utilities of 0.90, 0.70 and 0.24 were defined for CP, CR and incomplete response, respectively. Costs included medications and management of CINV-related events and were obtained from the British National Formulary and NHS Reference Costs. The expected budgetary impact of NEPA was also evaluated.
FINDINGS
In HEC patients, the NEPA strategy was more effective than APPA (quality-adjusted life days [QALDs] of 4.263 versus 4.053; incremental emesis-free and CINV-free days of +0.354 and +0.237, respectively) and was less costly (£80 versus £124), resulting in NEPA being the dominant strategy. In MEC patients, NEPA was cost effective, cumulating in an estimated 0.182 extra QALDs at an incremental cost of £6.65 compared with PA.
CONCLUSION
Despite study limitations (study setting, time horizon, utility measure), the results suggest NEPA is cost effective for preventing CINV associated with HEC and MEC in the UK.
PubMed: 28392826
DOI: 10.7573/dic.212298 -
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and... Dec 2022We compared the use of palonosetron with combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone in prevention of PONV in patients undergoing middle ear surgery under general...
Comparison of Palonosetron with Combination of Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in the Prevention of Post Operative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Middle Ear Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Trial.
We compared the use of palonosetron with combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone in prevention of PONV in patients undergoing middle ear surgery under general anaesthesia. Prospective, randomized study was conducted including 90 adult patients who received either palonosetron (0.075 mg) (Group P) or combination of palonosetron (0.075 mg) and dexamethasone (8 mg) (Group PD). The primary outcome was incidence of nausea, vomiting and complete response. Secondary parameters were time to receive first rescue antiemetic, total dose required, patient's satisfaction, postoperative pain scores and total dose of rescue analgesic. The incidence of nausea was 15.5% and 8.8% ( = 0.522) and vomiting was 6.7% and 2.2% ( = 0.610) in group P and PD, respectively Complete response (CR) was observed in 84.4% patients in group P and 91% patients in group PD ( = 0.522). Combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone is not superior to use of palonosetron alone for PONV prevention.
PubMed: 36742568
DOI: 10.1007/s12070-020-01996-6 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Dec 2022This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron with... (Review)
Review
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Palonosetron and Ramosetron in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.
This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron with that of ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A total of 17 randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV were included. The primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV, which were measured in early, late, and overall phases. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of the administration time of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and divided into two phases: early phase and the end of surgery. A total of 17 studies with 1823 patients were included in the final analysis. The incidence of retching (relative risk [RR] = 0.525; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.390 to 0.707) and late POV (RR = 0.604; 95% CI = 0.404 to 0.903) was significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ramosetron group. No significant differences were demonstrated in the incidence of PON, PONV, complete response, use of antiemetics, and adverse effects. Subgroup analysis showed that palonosetron was superior to ramosetron in terms of early PON, late PON, overall POV, and use of rescue antiemetics when they were administered early; in terms of retching, regardless of the timing of administration. Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in terms of early PON when they were administered late. The prophylactic administration of palonosetron was more effective than that of ramosetron in preventing the development of retching and late POV. In this meta-analysis, no significant differences in PONV prevention between the two drugs were demonstrated. Further studies are required to validate the outcomes of our study.
PubMed: 36675743
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13010082 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Aug 2023Approximately 25% of ambulatory surgery patients experience post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). We aimed to investigate whether palonosetron, a long-acting... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Approximately 25% of ambulatory surgery patients experience post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). We aimed to investigate whether palonosetron, a long-acting anti-emetic, decreases the incidence of PDNV in high-risk patients.
METHODS
In this prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 170 male and female patients undergoing ambulatory surgery under general anaesthesia, with a high predicted risk for PDNV, were randomised to receive either palonosetron 75 μg i.v. (n=84) or normal saline (n=86) before discharge. During the first 3 postoperative days (PODs), we measured outcomes using a patient questionnaire. The primary outcome was the incidence of a complete response (no nausea, vomiting, or use of rescue medication) until POD 2. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PDNV each day until POD 3.
RESULTS
The incidence of a complete response until POD 2 was 48% (n=32) in the palonosetron group and 36% (n=25) in the placebo group (odds ratio 1.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.85-3.37]; P=0.131). No significant difference in the incidence of PDNV was observed between the two groups on the day of surgery (47% vs 56%; P=0.31). Significant differences in the incidence of PDNV were found on POD 1 (18% vs 34%; P=0.033) and POD 2 (9% vs 27%; P=0.007). No differences were observed on POD 3 (15% vs 13%; P=0.700).
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with placebo, palonosetron did not reduce the overall incidence of post-discharge nausea and vomiting up to postoperative day 2. The lower incidence of post-discharge nausea and vomiting on poatoperative days 1 and 2 in the palonosetron group requires further investigation.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
EudraCT 2015-003956-32.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Palonosetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Prospective Studies; Patient Discharge; Aftercare; Antiemetics; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37246062
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.04.034 -
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care... Aug 2022Cisplatin (CDDP)-induced nephrotoxicity is the most important complication of CDDP treatment. 5-Hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HTRAs) are widely used...
BACKGROUND
Cisplatin (CDDP)-induced nephrotoxicity is the most important complication of CDDP treatment. 5-Hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HTRAs) are widely used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, in patients with the triple antiemetic (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, 5-HTRA, and dexamethasone) therapy, the advantage of palonosetron in comparison with other 5-HTRAs on CDDP-induced nephrotoxicity and CINV remains unclear. In the present study, we investigated the effect of palonosetron on CDDP-induced nephrotoxicity and CINV in patients with the triple antiemetic therapy by a retrospective cohort study and a pharmacovigilance analysis.
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the effect of 5-HTRAs on the development of nephrotoxicity and CINV in 110 patients who received CDDP, fluorouracil, and triple antiemetic therapy for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Moreover, the effect of 5-HTRAs on CDDP-induced nephrotoxicity was validated in patients with the triple antiemetic therapy using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database.
RESULTS
In a retrospective study, the incidence of nephrotoxicity (≥ grade 1) in patients receiving palonosetron (18%) was significantly lower than that in patients receiving ramosetron (another 5-HTRA) (36%, p = 0.044). Moreover, severe nephrotoxicity ≥ grade 3 was observed in one patient treated with ramosetron, whereas hematological toxicity was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.553). Furthermore, the incidence rate of CINV within 120 h following CDDP administration in patients treated with palonosetron (18%) was significantly lower than that in patients receiving ramosetron (39%, p = 0.026). JADER database analyses revealed that the reporting odds ratio of palonosetron for CDDP-induced acute kidney injury was 0.282 (95% confidence interval: 0.169-0.472).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the present study suggested a greater potential of palonosetron against CDDP-induced nephrotoxicity and CINV than other 5-HTRAs in patients with the triple antiemetic therapy.
PubMed: 35909131
DOI: 10.1186/s40780-022-00252-z -
Scientific Reports May 2024Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with...
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab(R-CHOP) is one of the standard regimens. Given that R-CHOP is highly emetogenic, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention is clinically important. However, there is a paucity of studies focusing on these patients. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in preventing CINV in patients with DLBCL undergoing first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy. Seventy patients were enrolled in this single-center prospective non-comparative study conducted between November 2020 and May 2023 in South Korea. NEPA was administered 1 h prior to chemotherapy initiation on day 1. The primary endpoint of the study was the complete response rate (no emesis, and no rescue medication) during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, which were assessed over a period of 120 h post-chemotherapy. The complete response rates for NEPA were 90.0% [95% CI 80.5, 95.9] for the acute phase, 85.7% [95% CI 75.3, 92.9] for the delayed phase, and 84.3% [95% CI 73.6, 91.9] for the overall phase, with no-emesis rates (acute: 97.1% [95% CI 97.1, 99.7], delayed: 95.7% [95% CI 88.0, 99.1], overall: 92.9% [95% CI 84.1, 97.6]). NEPA was well tolerated with no severe treatment-emergent adverse events. NEPA exhibited substantial efficacy in mitigating CINV in DLBCL patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy, demonstrating high CR and no-emesis rates, and favorable safety profiles.
Topics: Humans; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Doxorubicin; Cyclophosphamide; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Vincristine; Nausea; Vomiting; Rituximab; Prednisone; Aged; Palonosetron; Adult; Prospective Studies; Antiemetics; Pyridines; Treatment Outcome; Drug Combinations; Isoquinolines; Quinuclidines
PubMed: 38755279
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-62057-4 -
Core Evidence 2015The second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist palonosetron is effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist palonosetron is effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC, respectively). In addition, palonosetron has been the first and, at present, the only 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to have a specific indication for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with MEC. The unique pharmacology of this antagonist is thought to partly explain its improved efficacy against delayed symptoms.
AIMS
To review the evidence underlying the use of palonosetron in preventing CINV.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A recent meta-analysis consistently showed that palonosetron significantly increases the control of both emesis and nausea during the acute and delayed phases after single-day HEC or MEC. Consistent with these findings from trials that did not include an neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist, randomized controlled trials recently showed that a triple combination with palonosetron achieves significantly better control of delayed CINV, particularly delayed nausea, in patients undergoing HEC or the high-risk combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC). Evidence from randomized studies also supports palonosetron as a valuable option to reduce the total corticosteroid dose administered in patients undergoing multiple cycles of MEC or AC chemotherapy. Additional benefits of palonosetron include the lack of a warning on cardiac safety and no known clinically significant drug-drug interactions. Place in therapy and conclusion: Evidence currently available indicates that palonosetron significantly adds to the clinician's ability to effectively control CINV in patients undergoing HEC or MEC. It is recommended in the international guidelines for the prevention of CINV caused by MEC. The high safety profile and the opportunity to reduce the total corticosteroid dose with no loss in efficacy against delayed CINV should also contribute to a wider use of palonosetron in clinical practice.
PubMed: 26345982
DOI: 10.2147/CE.S65555 -
Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin 2021Patients who undergo multiple-day chemotherapy sessions experience hard-to-treat nausea and vomiting. Currently, there is no effective standard treatment for this...
Patients who undergo multiple-day chemotherapy sessions experience hard-to-treat nausea and vomiting. Currently, there is no effective standard treatment for this condition. This study compared the preventive effect of first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT RAs) and second-generation 5-HT RAs palonosetron in multiple-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The design of this study was a retrospective case-control study of patients who received a five-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy and were treated with aprepitant, dexamethasone, granisetron, and ramosetron or palonosetron. The patients were divided into two groups: patients given granisetron and ramosetron (the first-generation group), and those given palonosetron (palonosetron group). The percentage of patients with a complete response or total control was assessed. They were divided into three phases: 0-216 h (overall phase), 0-120 h (remedial phase), and 120-216 h (after phase). The remedial phase was further divided into 0-24 h (early phase) and 24-120 h (later phase). Moreover, the nutritional status of each patient was assessed by noting the patients' total calorie-intake per day and total parenteral nutrition. First-generation 5-HT RAs and palonosetron were used for treatment in 18 and 28 patients, respectively. The complete response rate and caloric oral intake of the later phase were higher in the palonosetron group than in the first-generation group. We conclude that palonosetron treatment was more effective than first-generation 5-HT RAs in controlling multiple-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzimidazoles; Bleomycin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Etoposide; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal; Ovarian Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Platinum Compounds; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Testicular Neoplasms; Vomiting
PubMed: 33790099
DOI: 10.1248/bpb.b20-00609 -
Oncology (Williston Park, N.Y.) Aug 2016Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important adverse effect of cancer therapy. The goal of CINV prophylaxis is to reduce the morbidity associated... (Review)
Review
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important adverse effect of cancer therapy. The goal of CINV prophylaxis is to reduce the morbidity associated with nausea and vomiting, as well as to preserve quality of life, while maintaining the desired chemotherapy regimen. The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved new therapies for prevention of CINV, including the neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist rolapitant and the fixed-dose combination of the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist palonosetron with the novel NK1 receptor antagonist netupitant. Alternative agents, like the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine, have also expanded the options available for preventing delayed and refractory CINV. Consensus guidelines for prevention of CINV from several organizations are generally consistent with one another and are updated based on expert review of available clinical trial data. This article will address changes in CINV guidelines over the past 5 years and provide updates on recently approved agents and agents that are expected to be approved, based on published phase III trials. It will also explore other factors affecting optimal CINV control, including the role of patient-related risk factors and the role of physician adherence to antiemetic guidelines in reducing the residual risk of CINV.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 27539626
DOI: No ID Found