-
Cancer Medicine May 2020To investigate whether palonosetron is better than granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a three-drug combination with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
A double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase 3 study of palonosetron vs granisetron combined with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.
PURPOSE
To investigate whether palonosetron is better than granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a three-drug combination with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant (Fos) in patients with breast cancer who are placed on anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC-based regimen).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Chemo-naive women with primary breast cancer were randomly administered either palonosetron 0.75 mg (day 1) or granisetron 1 mg (day 1) combined with dexamethasone (12 mg at day 1, 8 mg at day 2 and day 3) and Fos 150 mg (day 1) before receiving AC-based regimen in a double-blind study. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate of emesis in cycle 1 in the delayed phase. This was defined as neither vomiting nor rescue drug usage for emesis at >24-120 hours after chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute/overall phase (0-24/0-120 hours, respectively, after chemotherapy), no nausea and vomiting, Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and safety.
RESULTS
From December 2012 to October 2014, 326 patients were treated and evaluated (164/162 evaluable patients in granisetron/palonosetron arm, respectively). The CR during the delayed phase was 60.4% in the granisetron regimen and 62.3% in the palonosetron regimen. The CR during acute phase (73.2% vs 75.9%, respectively) and the CR during overall phase (54.9% in both regimens) were very identical. A significantly higher number of patients in the palonosetron arm were free from nausea during the delayed phase (28% vs 40.1%; P = .029). Adverse events were also identical, although infusion site reactions (ISR) were higher (20.3%-23.3%) than preceding studies in both regimens.
CONCLUSION
In combination with dexamethasone and Fos, this study suggests that palonosetron is not better than granisetron in chemo-naive patients with primary breast cancer receiving AC-based regimen. Administration of Fos in peripheral veins after AC-based regimen increased ISR.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Doxorubicin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epirubicin; Female; Fluorouracil; Granisetron; Humans; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Vomiting
PubMed: 32168551
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2979 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2021Since westernized diet-induced insulin resistance is a risk factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD) development, and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) coexists with amyloid β...
Since westernized diet-induced insulin resistance is a risk factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD) development, and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) coexists with amyloid β (Aβ)1-42 in these patients, our AD novel model was developed to resemble sporadic AD by injecting LPS into high fat/fructose diet (HFFD)-fed rats. The neuroprotective potential of palonosetron and/or methyllycaconitine, 5-HT3 receptor and α7 nAChR blockers, respectively, was evaluated after 8 days of daily administration in HFFD/LPS rats. All regimens improved histopathological findings and enhanced spatial memory (Morris Water Maze); however, palonosetron alone or with methyllycaconitine promoted animal performance during novel object recognition tests. In the hippocampus, all regimens reduced the expression of glial fibrillary acidic protein and skewed microglia M1 to M2 phenotype, indicated by the decreased M1 markers and the enhanced M2 related parameters. Additionally, palonosetron and its combination regimen downregulated the expression of ASC/TMS1, as well as levels of inflammasome downstream molecules and abated cleaved caspase-1, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-18 and caspase-11. Furthermore, ACh and 5-HT were augmented after being hampered by the insult. Our study speculates that blocking 5-HT3 receptor using palonosetron overrides methyllycaconitine to combat AD-induced neuroinflammation and inflammasome cascade, as well as to restore microglial function in a HFFD/LPS novel model for sporadic AD.
Topics: Aconitine; Alzheimer Disease; Amyloid beta-Peptides; Animals; CARD Signaling Adaptor Proteins; Cognition; Diet, Western; Disease Models, Animal; Hippocampus; Humans; Inflammasomes; Inflammation; Insulin Resistance; Interleukin-18; Lipopolysaccharides; Microglia; Palonosetron; Peptide Fragments; Pyroptosis; Rats; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Risk Factors; Spatial Memory
PubMed: 34443654
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26165068 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2019The control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) treatment is important for maintaining treatment intensity. The...
BACKGROUND/AIM
The control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) treatment is important for maintaining treatment intensity. The effects of palonosetron and granisetron were compared in BEP chemotherapy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
The administration of palonosetron on days 1 and 5 (Pal method) and granisetron daily (days 1-5, Gra method) were compared in terms of their efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
RESULTS
Additional rescue antiemetic agents were used in 15 of 32 and 30 of 30 cycles in the Pal and Gra method groups, respectively (p<0.05). The complete response rate, defined as no vomiting and no rescue agent usage, in each cycle, was 50% and 0% in the Pal and Gra method groups, respectively (p<0.05). The average cost of antiemetic agents in a cycle was 50,759 and 54,555 yen in the Pal and Gra method groups, respectively (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION
The Pal method may be the standard method in BEP.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bleomycin; Cisplatin; Drug Administration Schedule; Etoposide; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal; Palonosetron; Vomiting; Young Adult
PubMed: 30804153
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11522 -
Core Evidence 2020Antineoplastic drugs may induce several side effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Two neurotransmitters play a central role in mediating... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Antineoplastic drugs may induce several side effects, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Two neurotransmitters play a central role in mediating the emetic response: serotonin acting on the 5HT3 receptor and the substance P targeting the NK1 receptor. Indeed, a combination of a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) and a NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) together with dexamethasone has been shown to be very effective. In fact, this combination is actually widely used and recommended for CINV prophylaxis for highly emetogenic cisplatin-based adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and carboplatin-based regimens. NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) is the only fixed combination antiemetic available and it is composed by the long-lasting second-generation 5HT3-RA palonosetron and the highly selective NK1-RA netupitant.
AIM
The aims of this short review were to analyze the role of NEPA in CINV prophylaxis and management taking in account the risk factors related to the patient and to the antineoplastic treatment.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
CINV development is not only correlated to the emetogenic potential of the antineoplastic drugs but is also very influenced by the patient characteristics and history, such as gender, age, alcohol intake, nausea during pregnancy and motion sickness. In pivotal and post-registration studies, NEPA has demonstrated to be effective and safe in both highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION
A proper assessment of both chemotherapy- and patient-related risk factors is paramount to properly evaluate an appropriate prophylaxis of CINV and NEPA by simplifying the therapy, guarantees fully adherence to antiemetic guidelines, and consequently improves the control of CINV, especially in high risk patients.
PubMed: 32802009
DOI: 10.2147/CE.S203634 -
Advances in Therapy Nov 2023Fosnetupitant is a novel neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NKRA) with favorable antiemetic efficacy in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. This study assessed... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
Fosnetupitant is a novel neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist (NKRA) with favorable antiemetic efficacy in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. This study assessed the efficacy of fosnetupitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone and identified risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for up to 168 h after treatment using pooled data from Japanese studies.
METHODS
A pooled analysis of randomized phase II and phase III studies was performed to compare the efficacy of fosnetupitant and fosaprepitant in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) rate, CINV risk factors in various phases (0-120, 0-168, and 120-168 h), and impact of the number of risk factors on the time to treatment failure (TTF) were examined in the overall and NKRA evaluable populations.
RESULTS
In the combined cohort of NKRA evaluable patients (n = 980), the CR rate at 0-168 h was significantly better in the fosnetupitant 235 mg group than in the fosaprepitant group (rate difference = 6.8%, 95% confidence interval = 1.0-12.7, p = 0.022). In the overall (n = 1368) and NKRA evaluable populations, the CINV risk factor at 120-168 h was treatment failure in the first 120 h. TTF deteriorated as the number of identified CINV risk factors increased.
CONCLUSION
This analysis revealed that fosnetupitant could have long-acting antiemetic potency (> 120 h) and indicated the importance of antiemetic therapy at 0-120 h for CINV up to 168 h after chemotherapy.
Topics: Humans; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Nausea; Quinuclidines; Risk Factors; Vomiting
PubMed: 37715851
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-023-02648-1 -
Journal of Geriatric Oncology Jul 2023We recently demonstrated the non-inferiority of two dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens with an oral fixed-combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) versus the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Dexamethasone-sparing regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in older patients (>65 years) fit for cisplatin: A sub-analysis from a phase 3 study.
INTRODUCTION
We recently demonstrated the non-inferiority of two dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens with an oral fixed-combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) versus the guideline-recommended DEX use for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Since prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of the DEX-sparing regimens in this subset.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Chemo-naive patients aged >65 years treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m) were eligible. Patients received NEPA and DEX on day 1 and were randomized to receive either (1) no further DEX (DEX1), (2) oral low-dose DEX (4 mg) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or (3) the guideline-recommended standard DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint of the parent study was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). No significant nausea (NSN; none or mild nausea) and the proportion of patients reporting no impact on daily life (NIDL) which was evaluated by the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire on day 6 (overall combined score > 108), were secondary endpoints.
RESULTS
Among the 228 patients in the parent study, 107 were > 65 years. Similar CR rates [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were observed in patients over 65 years across treatment groups [DEX1: 75% (59.7-86.8%); DEX3: 80.6% (62.5-92.6%); DEX4: 75% (56.6-88.5%)] as well as versus the total study population. NSN rates were also similar in the older-patients across treatment groups (p = 0.480) but were higher compared with the total population. Similar rates of NIDL (95% CI) were reported in the older-patient subset across treatment groups [DEX1: 61.5% (44.6-76.6%); DEX3: 64.3% (44.1-81.4%); DEX4: 62.1% (42.3-79.3%); p = 1.0] during the overall phase, as well as versus total population. A similar proportion of older patients across treatment groups experienced DEX-related side effects.
DISCUSSION
This analysis shows that older-patients who are fit for cisplatin benefit from a simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX with neither loss in antiemetic efficacy nor the adverse impact on patient daily functioning. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04201769) on 17/12/2019 (retrospectively registered).
Topics: Humans; Aged; Cisplatin; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Nausea; Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 37290207
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2023.101537 -
International Journal of Medical... 2018: The efficacy of dexamethasone plus palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis is not firmly established. This randomized, double-blind,... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Efficacy of Palonosetron-Dexamethasone Combination Versus Palonosetron Alone for Preventing Nausea and Vomiting Related to Opioid-Based Analgesia: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Trial.
: The efficacy of dexamethasone plus palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis is not firmly established. This randomized, double-blind, controlled study evaluated whether the combination was superior to palonosetron alone in preventing PONV in patients receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after upper extremity surgery. : A total of 202 patients undergoing upper extremity surgery were randomly assigned to group P (palonosetron alone) or group PD (palonosetron plus dexamethasone). Group P patients received palonosetron 0.075 mg and normal saline 1.6 mL; group PD patients received palonosetron 0.075 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg. In both groups, palonosetron was added to the IV-PCA opioid infusion, which was continued for 48 h postoperatively. Incidence and severity of nausea, incidence of vomiting, rescue antiemetic requirements, pain intensity, and rescue analgesic requirements were evaluated for 72 h postoperatively. Quality of recovery was assessed using the quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15) questionnaire. The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in group PD than in group P at 0-48 h postoperatively (61.5% vs 77.1%; p = 0.019). Severity of nausea at 0-6 h postoperatively was significantly less in group PD compared with group P (none/mild/moderate/severe: 49/22/15/10 vs. 36/16/25/19, p = 0.008). The incidence of vomiting and rescue antiemetic requirements were similar between groups. Pain intensity was significantly less in group PD than in group P at 0-48 h and 48-72 h postoperatively. Global QoR-15 was similar 24 h postoperatively between groups. : Dexamethasone-palonosetron combination therapy reduced PONV incidence and postoperative pain in patients receiving opioid-based analgesia after upper extremity surgery.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Vomiting
PubMed: 30013436
DOI: 10.7150/ijms.24230 -
Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin 2017In the present study, the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, not combined with dexamethasone and aprepitant, on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was evaluated in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
In the present study, the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, not combined with dexamethasone and aprepitant, on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was evaluated in patients with malignant lymphoma receiving first-line rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy, and was compared to that of granisetron. A total of 74 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma were included in this study (April 2007 to December 2015). Palonosetron (0.75 mg) or granisetron (3 mg) was intravenously administered before R-CHOP therapy. The proportions of patients with complete response (CR) during the overall (0-120 h after the start of R-CHOP therapy), acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) phases were evaluated. CR was defined as no vomiting and no use of antiemetic rescue medication. A total of 32 and 42 patients were treated with palonosetron and granisetron, respectively. The CR rate in the palonosetron group was significantly higher than that in the granisetron group during the delayed phase (90.6 and 61.9%, respectively; p=0.007). Logistic regression analysis showed that use of palonosetron improved the CR rate during the delayed phase, compared to use of granisetron. Female sex, age less than 60 years, no habitual alcohol intake, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) score of 1 were significant risk factors associated with non-CR. The findings of this study suggested the superiority of palonosetron to granisetron, without accompanying dexamethasone and aprepitant, for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with malignant lymphoma.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aging; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Asian People; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prednisone; Quinuclidines; Risk Factors; Rituximab; Sex Characteristics; Treatment Outcome; Vincristine; Vomiting; Young Adult
PubMed: 28867732
DOI: 10.1248/bpb.b17-00318 -
Medicine Jul 2021Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complaint in patients following general anesthesia. Various antiemetics, including 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Comparison of efficacy between palonosetron-midazolam combination and palonosetron alone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing breast surgery and patient controlled analgesia: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study: A CONSORT-compliant study.
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complaint in patients following general anesthesia. Various antiemetics, including 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, are effective but still have limited efficacy. Therefore, combination therapy is preferable to using a single drug alone in high-risk patients. We performed a comparative study on the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, monotherapy vs palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy for the prevention of PONV.
METHODS
A total of 104 female patients scheduled for breast cancer surgery were enrolled. They were randomly divided into 2 groups, a palonosetron monotherapy group (group P) and palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy group (group PM). Both groups received 0.075 mg palonosetron intravenously after induction of anesthesia. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was applied according to the allocated group. Intravenous (IV)-PCA in group P consisted of fentanyl 20 μg/kg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml); IV-PCA in group PM consisted of fentanyl 20 μg/kg plus midazolam 4 mg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml). Efficacy parameters were collected during 0 to 1, 1 to 6, 6 to 24, and 24 to 48 hours postoperative time intervals. These measures included complete response (defined as no PONV and no rescue anti-emetic use) rate, incidence of PONV, sedation score, rescue antiemetic use, rescue analgesic use, and numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain. The complete response rate during the 0 to 24 hours interval was analyzed as the primary outcome.
RESULTS
Although the complete response rate between 0 and 24 hours was higher in group PM (42.3% and 48.1% in group P and PM, respectively), there was no statistically significant difference (P = .55). The complete response rates in other time intervals were not different between the 2 groups as well. The sedation score and NRS score also showed no differences between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The combination therapy of palonosetron with midazolam did not lead to a greater reduction in the incidence of PONV than monotherapy in patients undergoing breast surgery and receiving IV-PCA containing fentanyl.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Antiemetics; Breast Neoplasms; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fentanyl; Humans; Mastectomy; Midazolam; Middle Aged; Palonosetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34190167
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026438 -
Cancer Management and Research 2014Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a key component of treatment for patients with cancer. Guidelines are available to assist prescribers in... (Review)
Review
Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a key component of treatment for patients with cancer. Guidelines are available to assist prescribers in the management of CINV associated with single-day chemotherapy regimens. However, currently there are no clear guidelines for management of CINV in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy regimens. Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are a mainstay in preventing CINV, and palonosetron, given its longer half-life and duration of action relative to other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, may be a useful option for managing CINV in multiple-day chemotherapy. Here we provide an overview of CINV and CINV treatment options, with a focus on palonosetron. We describe existing challenges in managing CINV, and discuss two patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy, in whom CINV was managed successfully with palonosetron.
PubMed: 25228819
DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S68102