-
Romanian Journal of Anaesthesia and... Jul 2021For the prevention of PONV, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron compared with ondansetron along with dexamethasone in patients undergoing laparoscopic...
Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron Compared with the Combination of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Gynaecological Surgery.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
For the prevention of PONV, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron compared with ondansetron along with dexamethasone in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery.
METHODS
A total of 84 adults, posted for elective laparoscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia were included in the study. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups (n = 42 each). Immediately after induction, patients in the first group (group I) received 4 mg ondansetron with 8 mg dexamethasone, and patients in the second group (group II) received 0.075 mg palonosetron. Any incidences of nausea and/or vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, and side effects were recorded.
RESULTS
In group I, 66.67% of the patients had an Apfel score of 2, and 33.33% of the patients had a score of 3. In group II, 85.71% of patients had an Apfel score of 2, and 14.29% of the patients had a score of 3. At 1, 4, and 8 hours, the incidence of PONV was comparable in both groups. At 24 hours there was a significant difference in the incidence of PONV in the group treated with ondansetron with dexamethasone combination (4/42) when compared to the palonosetron group (0/42). The overall incidence of PONV was significantly higher in group I (23.81%: ondansetron and dexamethasone combination) than in group II (7.14%: palonosetron). The need for rescue medication in group I was significantly high. Conclusion: Palonosetron was more efficacious compared to the combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone for preventing PONV for laparoscopic gynaecological surgery.
PubMed: 36846536
DOI: 10.2478/rjaic-2021-0003 -
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Care... 2018Antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron or palonosetron alone and in combination with a corticosteroid against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were...
BACKGROUND
Antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron or palonosetron alone and in combination with a corticosteroid against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma receiving adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) therapy.
METHODS
A total of 39 patients were eligible for this study. Before ABVD therapy, granisetron or palonosetron was intravenously administered with or without a corticosteroid (dexamethasone or hydrocortisone) and aprepitant. The proportions of patients with complete control (CC) during the overall (0-120 h after the start of ABVD therapy), acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) phases were evaluated. CC was defined as no vomiting and no use of antiemetic rescue medication with only grade 0-1 nausea.
RESULTS
Granisetron and palonosetron were administered in 21 and 18 patients, respectively. The CC rate during the acute, delayed and overall phases was not statistically different between the two groups. The CINV was completely controlled during overall phase in 58.3% of patients receiving granisetron or palonosetron in combination with a corticosteroid, whereas in 11.1% of those without co-treatment of a corticosteroid ( < 0.05). There were significantly higher frequencies of anorexia, leucopenia and neutropenia in the palonosetron group. There is a statistically significant difference in the frequency of febrile neutropenia between presence and absence of a corticosteroid ( = 0.024).
CONCLUSION
These findings suggested that a combination use of a corticosteroid with a 5-HT receptor antagonist was preferable for CINV control in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma receiving ABVD therapy, although the careful management of febrile neutropenia is required.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The study approval numbers in the institution; 24-12 and 24-359. Registered April 17, 2012 and June 21, 2012.
PubMed: 29345696
DOI: 10.1186/s40780-017-0097-4 -
The Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences Jul 2017Albumin-bound paclitaxel (Abraxane®, nab-paclitaxel) is not recommended to be administered concurrently or sequentially with other drugs due to concern for instability....
Albumin-bound paclitaxel (Abraxane®, nab-paclitaxel) is not recommended to be administered concurrently or sequentially with other drugs due to concern for instability. The need to administer drugs separately increases infusion time. We evaluated the compatibility and stability of solutions containing nab-paclitaxel and other drugs, including gemcitabine hydrochloride, carboplatin, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, granisetron hydrochloride, and palonosetron hydrochloride. We visually examined changes in appearance, pH, and concentration of the mixed solutions of nab-paclitaxel and other drugs for up to 24 h. Concentration was measured using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The appearance and pH of the mixed solutions did not change for up to 24 h. The change in concentration up to 24 h was within 2%. The chromatogram did not change until 8 h. The results showed that the physical compatibility and chemical stability of nab-paclitaxel were not influenced when it was combined with other drugs until 8 h. This study suggests that nab-paclitaxel could be administered in a mixture or sequentially with other drugs to reduce administration time.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid; Deoxycytidine; Drug Combinations; Drug Incompatibility; Drug Stability; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Paclitaxel; Risk Factors; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 29434168
DOI: No ID Found -
Anesthesia, Essays and Researches 2016Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common occurrence after laparoscopic surgeries. A number of pharmacological agents (antihistamines, butyrophenones,...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common occurrence after laparoscopic surgeries. A number of pharmacological agents (antihistamines, butyrophenones, dopamine receptor antagonists) have been tried of which the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists are devoid of most side effects and highly effective in prevention and treatment of PONV. Thus, we evaluated the effectiveness of granisetron and palonosetron in prevention of PONV after laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia.
AIMS
We conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of granisetron and palonosetron, to compare the duration of action and side effects if any, in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, comparative study. Sixty patients (18-65 years of age) of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II undergoing elective laparoscopic surgeries were considered.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
They were randomly allocated into one of the two groups (Group G and Group P) of thirty patients each. Group G received injection granisetron 0.05 mg/kg; Group P received injection palonosetron 1.5 mcg/kg intravenous bolus 30 min before the induction of anesthesia.
STATISTICAL TESTS
All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical package version 18.0 (Chicago: SPSS Inc). Two independent sample -test was used for quantitative data, and the χ or Fisher's exact test was used for qualitative data. A difference was regarded as statistically significant at a < 0.05.
RESULTS
The need for rescue antiemetic was significantly lower in Group P in the 24-72 h postoperative period (ρ - 0.007). The PONV score was significantly less in Group P in the same period (ρ - 0.008). The incidence of side effects was statistically insignificant in both the groups (ρ - 0.999).
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic therapy with palonosetron is more effective than granisetron in the prevention of PONV after laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia.
PubMed: 27746523
DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.191121 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... May 2017Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT) receptor... (Review)
Review
Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT) receptor antagonists (RAs) has reduced the risk of vomiting, but (except for palonosetron) their effect on nausea, especially delayed nausea, is limited. This article reviews the role of NKRAs when combined with 5-HTRA-dexamethasone in CIN prophylaxis. Aprepitant has not shown consistent superiority over a two-drug (ondansetron-dexamethasone) combination in nausea control after cisplatin- or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Recently, dexamethasone and dexamethasone-metoclopramide were demonstrated to be non-inferior to aprepitant and aprepitant-dexamethasone, respectively, for the control of delayed nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin), and are now recognized in the guidelines. The potential impact of the new NKRAs rolapitant and netupitant (oral fixed combination with palonosetron, as NEPA) in CIN prophylaxis is discussed. While the clinical significance of the effect on nausea of the rolapitant-granisetron-dexamethasone combination after cisplatin is not conclusive, rolapitant addition showed no improvement in nausea prophylaxis after AC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). NEPA was superior to palonosetron in the control of nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin). Moreover, the efficacy of NEPA in nausea control was maintained over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC. Recently, NKRAs have been challenged by olanzapine, with olanzapine showing superior efficacy in nausea prevention after HEC. Fixed antiemetic combinations (such as NEPA) or new antiemetics with a long half-life that may be given once per chemotherapy cycle (rolapitant or NEPA) may improve patient compliance with antiemetic treatment.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Quality of Life; Vomiting
PubMed: 28108820
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-017-3585-z -
Medicine Dec 2023A multimodal therapeutic strategy for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) benefits moderate- and high-risk surgical patients. We compared the efficacy of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of a combination of midazolam with ramosetron and midazolam with palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
BACKGROUND
A multimodal therapeutic strategy for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) benefits moderate- and high-risk surgical patients. We compared the efficacy of a combination of midazolam and ramosetron and a combination of midazolam and palonosetron for PONV prophylaxis in patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS
We enrolled 68 patients aged 20 to 65 years undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were randomly allocated to the midazolam 0.05 mg/kg with ramosetron 0.3 mg (MR) or midazolam 0.05 mg/kg with palonosetron 0.075 mg (MP) groups. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, use of rescue antiemetics, and pain severity were evaluated at 2, 24, and 48 hours after surgery.
RESULTS
The incidence (38.2% vs 5.9%) and severity of postoperative nausea were significantly lower in the MP group at 2 hours after surgery (P < .05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or pain severity between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION
The combination of midazolam with palonosetron significantly decreased the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea compared with midazolam combined with ramosetron, especially in the early postoperative phase (0-2 hours) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Topics: Humans; Antiemetics; Palonosetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Midazolam; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Double-Blind Method; Benzimidazoles
PubMed: 38206711
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036824 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Nausea and vomiting remain a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting remain a problem for children undergoing treatment for malignancies despite new antiemetic therapies. Optimising antiemetic regimens could improve quality of life by reducing nausea, vomiting, and associated clinical problems. This is an update of the original systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and adverse events of pharmacological interventions in controlling anticipatory, acute, and delayed nausea and vomiting in children and young people (aged less than 18 years) about to receive or receiving chemotherapy.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society of Paediatric Oncology, Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, and ISI Science and Technology Proceedings Index from incept to December 16, 2014, and trial registries from their earliest records to December 2014. We examined references of systematic reviews and contacted trialists for information on further studies. We also screened the reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two review authors independently screened abstracts in order to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a pharmacological antiemetic, cannabinoid, or benzodiazepine with placebo or any alternative active intervention in children and young people (less than 18 years) with a diagnosis of cancer who were to receive chemotherapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted outcome and quality data from each RCT. When appropriate, we undertook meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 studies that examined a range of different antiemetics, used different doses and comparators, and reported a variety of outcomes. The quality and quantity of included studies limited the exploration of heterogeneity to narrative approaches only.The majority of quantitative data related to the complete control of acute vomiting (27 studies). Adverse events were reported in 29 studies and nausea outcomes in 16 studies.Two studies assessed the addition of dexamethasone to 5-HT3 antagonists for complete control of vomiting (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 3.04). Three studies compared granisetron 20 mcg/kg with 40 mcg/kg for complete control of vomiting (pooled RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07). Three studies compared granisetron with ondansetron for complete control of acute nausea (pooled RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; 2 studies), acute vomiting (pooled RR 2.26; 95% CI 2.04 to 2.51; 3 studies), delayed nausea (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; 2 studies), and delayed vomiting (pooled RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; 2 studies). No other pooled analyses were possible.Narrative synthesis suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are more effective than older antiemetic agents, even when these agents are combined with a steroid. Cannabinoids are probably effective but produce frequent side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our overall knowledge of the most effective antiemetics to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in childhood is incomplete. Future research should be undertaken in consultation with children, young people, and families that have experienced chemotherapy and should make use of validated, age-appropriate measures. This review suggests that 5-HT3 antagonists are effective in patients who are to receive emetogenic chemotherapy, with granisetron or palonosetron possibly better than ondansetron. Adding dexamethasone improves control of vomiting, although the risk-benefit profile of adjunctive steroid remains uncertain.
Topics: Adolescent; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Nausea; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting
PubMed: 26836199
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007786.pub3 -
Hong Kong Medical Journal = Xianggang... Feb 2023This post-hoc analysis retrospectively assessed data from two recent studies of antiemetic regimens for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The primary...
INTRODUCTION
This post-hoc analysis retrospectively assessed data from two recent studies of antiemetic regimens for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The primary objective was to compare olanzapine-based versus netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA)-based regimens in terms of controlling CINV during cycle 1 of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy; secondary objectives were to assess quality of life (QOL) and emesis outcomes over four cycles of AC.
METHODS
This study included 120 Chinese patients with early-stage breast cancer who were receiving AC; 60 patients received the olanzapine-based antiemetic regimen, whereas 60 patients received the NEPA-based antiemetic regimen. The olanzapine-based regimen comprised aprepitant, ondansetron, dexamethasone, and olanzapine; the NEPA-based regimen comprised NEPA and dexamethasone. Patient outcomes were compared in terms of emesis control and QOL.
RESULTS
During cycle 1 of AC, the olanzapine group exhibited a higher rate of 'no use of rescue therapy' in the acute phase (olanzapine vs NEPA: 96.7% vs 85.0%, P=0.0225). No parameters differed between groups in the delayed phase. The olanzapine group had significantly higher rates of 'no use of rescue therapy' (91.7% vs 76.7%, P=0.0244) and 'no significant nausea' (91.7% vs 78.3%, P=0.0408) in the overall phase. There were no differences in QOL between groups. Multiple cycle assessment revealed that the NEPA group had higher rates of total control in the acute phase (cycles 2 and 4) and the overall phase (cycles 3 and 4).
CONCLUSION
These results do not conclusively support the superiority of either regimen for patients with breast cancer who are receiving AC.
Topics: Humans; Female; Antiemetics; Palonosetron; Olanzapine; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Dexamethasone; Vomiting; Nausea; Breast Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 36810240
DOI: 10.12809/hkmj209182 -
Experimental Brain Research Aug 2014Current therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting includes the use of both 5-HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists. Acute emesis has largely been alleviated with...
Current therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting includes the use of both 5-HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists. Acute emesis has largely been alleviated with the use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, while an improvement in preventing delayed emesis has been achieved with NK1 receptor antagonists. Delayed emesis, however, remains a problem with a significant portion of cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Like other drugs in its class, palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, has shown efficacy against acute emesis. However, palonosetron has also shown consistent improvement in the suppression of delayed emesis. Since both 5-HT3 and NK1 receptor antagonists are often simultaneously administered to patients, the question remains if palonosetron's effect on delayed emesis would remain distinct when co-administered with an NK1 receptor antagonist. Recent mechanistic studies using NG108-15 cells have shown that palonosetron and netupitant, an NK1 receptor antagonist currently in phase 3 clinical trials, exhibited synergistic effects when inhibiting the substance P response. The present studies showed that both netupitant and palonosetron-induced NK1 receptor internalization in NG108-15 cells and that when used together receptor internalization was additive. Palonosetron-induced NK1 receptor internalization was dependent on the presence of the 5-HT3 receptor. Results provide a possible explanation for palonosetron's enhancement of the inhibition of the SP response and suggest that the effect of palonosetron and NK1 receptor antagonists on prevention of delayed emesis could be additive.
Topics: Acids; Animals; Cell Line; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; HEK293 Cells; Humans; Isoquinolines; Mice; Neuroblastoma; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Peptide Hydrolases; Protein Binding; Protein Transport; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Rats; Receptors, Neurokinin-1; Serotonin Antagonists; Time Factors; Tritium
PubMed: 24969614
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-4017-7 -
ACS Chemical Neuroscience Dec 2016Palonosetron is a potent 5-HT receptor antagonist and an effective therapeutic agent against emesis. Here we identify the molecular determinants of compound recognition...
Palonosetron is a potent 5-HT receptor antagonist and an effective therapeutic agent against emesis. Here we identify the molecular determinants of compound recognition in the receptor binding site by obtaining a high resolution structure of palonosetron bound to an engineered acetylcholine binding protein that mimics the 5-HT receptor binding site, termed 5-HTBP, and by examining the potency of palonosetron in a range of 5-HT receptors with mutated binding site residues. The structural data indicate that palonosetron forms a tight and effective wedge in the binding pocket, made possible by its rigid tricyclic ring structure and its interactions with binding site residues; it adopts a binding pose that is distinct from the related antiemetics granisetron and tropisetron. The functional data show many residues previously shown to interact with agonists and antagonists in the binding site are important for palonosetron binding, and indicate those of particular importance are W183 (a cation-π interaction and a hydrogen bond) and Y153 (a hydrogen bond). This information, and the availability of the structure of palonosetron bound to 5-HTBP, should aid the development of novel and more efficacious drugs that act via 5-HT receptors.
Topics: Animals; Aplysia; Binding Sites; Carrier Proteins; Crystallography, X-Ray; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; HEK293 Cells; Humans; Hydrogen Bonding; Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions; Isoquinolines; Membrane Potentials; Models, Molecular; Molecular Structure; Mutation; Palonosetron; Protein Engineering; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists
PubMed: 27656911
DOI: 10.1021/acschemneuro.6b00132