-
Cancer Medicine Aug 2023Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
Non-inferiority of NEPA (fixed combination of NK receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and 5-HT RA, palonosetron) versus an aprepitant regimen was previously shown in a pragmatic study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). In the MEC group a numerically higher complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue) rate was seen for NEPA during the overall 0-120 h phase (NEPA 76.1% vs. 63.1% aprepitant). As NEPA exhibits long-lasting efficacy, this study evaluated a prolonged period up to 144 h, beyond the traditional 120 h post-chemotherapy. In this post-hoc analysis we explore the comparative efficacy of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen in the MEC group up to 144 h, while also assessing the impact of risk factors on CINV prevention.
METHODS
This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, prospective study. Oral NEPA was administered as a single dose on day 1, while aprepitant was given on days 1-3 + ondansetron on day 1; all patients were to receive dexamethasone on days 1-4. Patients were chemotherapy-naïve and receiving MEC, with a subset evaluation of those with a risk factor for developing CINV (i.e., female, male <60 years, male ≥60 years who received carboplatin, or male ≥60 years with anxiety). CR rates were compared during the extended overall (0-144 h) phase.
RESULTS
The MEC group included 211 patients; of these 181 were in the risk factor subset. Significantly higher CR rates were seen for NEPA than aprepitant during the extended overall phase for the total MEC group (NEPA 77.1%, aprepitant 57.8%, p = 0.003) and also in the subset of patients with CINV risk factors (NEPA 73.9%, aprepitant 56.2%, p = 0.012).
CONCLUSION
A single dose of NEPA, administered on day 1 only, was more effective than a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV for an extended duration in patients receiving MEC and in those with emetic risk factors.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Aprepitant; Antiemetics; Vomiting; Prospective Studies; Isoquinolines; Quinuclidines; Drug Combinations; Nausea; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 37537943
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6121 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... 2024Anticipatory nausea and vomiting are unpleasant symptoms observed before undergoing chemotherapy sessions. Less is known about the occurrence of symptoms since the...
OBJECTIVE
Anticipatory nausea and vomiting are unpleasant symptoms observed before undergoing chemotherapy sessions. Less is known about the occurrence of symptoms since the advent of the new neurokinin-1 antagonist.
METHODS
This prospective cohort study was performed at a single Brazilian Institution. This study included breast cancer patients who received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and an appropriate antiemetic regimen (dexamethasone 10 mg, palonosetron 0.56 mg, and netupitant 300 mg in the D1 followed by dexamethasone 10 mg 12/12 h in D2 and D4). Patients used a diary to record nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication in the first two cycles of treatment. The prevalence of anticipatory nausea and vomiting was assessed before chemotherapy on day 1 of C2.
RESULTS
From August 4, 2020, to August 12, 2021, 60 patients were screened, and 52 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 50.8 (28-69) years, most had stage III (53.8%), and most received chemotherapy with curative intent (94%). During the first cycle, the frequency of overall nausea and vomiting was 67.31%, and that of severe nausea and vomiting (defined as grade>4 on a 10-point visual scale or use of rescue medication) was 55.77%. Ten patients had anticipatory nausea and vomiting (19.23%). The occurrence of nausea and vomiting during C1 was the only statistically significant predictor of anticipatory nausea and vomiting (OR=16, 95%CI 2.4-670.9, p=0.0003).
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of anticipatory nausea is still high in the era of neurokinin-1 antagonists, and failure of antiemetic control in C1 remains the main risk factor. All efforts should be made to control chemotherapy-induced nausea or nausea and vomiting on C1 to avoid anticipatory nausea.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Adult; Antiemetics; Aged; Nausea; Prevalence; Brazil; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Vomiting, Anticipatory; Vomiting; Dexamethasone; Palonosetron
PubMed: 38716933
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.20230937 -
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 -
BMC Surgery Nov 2023Antiemetic and analgesic oral premedications are frequently prescribed preoperatively to enhance recovery after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. However, it is unknown... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
BACKGROUND
Antiemetic and analgesic oral premedications are frequently prescribed preoperatively to enhance recovery after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. However, it is unknown whether these medications transit beyond the stomach or if they remain in the sleeve resection specimen, thereby negating their pharmacological effects.
METHODS
A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and receiving oral premedication (slow-release tapentadol and netupitant/palonosetron) as part of enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery program. Patients were stratified into the Transit group (premedication absent in the resection specimen) and Failure-to-Transit group (premedication present in the resection specimen). Age, sex, body mass index, and presence of diabetes were compared amongst the groups. The premedication lead time (time between premedications' administration and gastric specimen resection), and the premedication presence or absence in the specimen was evaluated.
RESULTS
One hundred consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Ninety-nine patients (99%) were morbidly obese, and 17 patients (17%) had Type 2 diabetes mellitus. One hundred patients (100%) received tapentadol and 89 patients (89%) received netupitant/palonosetron. One or more tablets were discovered in the resected specimens of 38 patients (38%). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding age, sex, diabetes, or body mass index. The median (Q1‒Q3) premedication lead time was 80 min (57.8‒140.0) in the Failure-to-Transit group and 119.5 min (85.0‒171.3) in the Transit group; P = 0.006. The lead time required to expect complete absorption in 80% of patients was 232 min (95%CI:180‒310).
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative oral analgesia and antiemetics did not transit beyond the stomach in 38% of patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. When given orally in combination, tapentadol and netupitant/palonosetron should be administered at least 4 h before surgery to ensure transition beyond the stomach. Future enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery guidelines may benefit from the standardization of premedication lead times to facilitate increased absorption.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; number ACTRN12623000187640; retrospective registered on 22/02/2023.
Topics: Humans; Australia; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Gastrectomy; Laparoscopy; Obesity, Morbid; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Stomach; Tapentadol; Treatment Outcome; Male; Female
PubMed: 37924061
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02246-6 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2024Nausea and vomiting are common side effects of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd), but guidelines for optimal management were not initially available. This retrospective...
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting are common side effects of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (T-DXd), but guidelines for optimal management were not initially available. This retrospective single-center study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of two antiemetic regimens in patients receiving T-DXd.
METHODS
Data from metastatic breast cancer patients receiving T-DXd were collected. Two groups were defined: patients treated with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RA) ± dexamethasone (5-HT3-group) and patients treated with a fixed oral combination of netupitant (NK1RA) and palonosetron ± dexamethasone (NK1 group). Physicians preferentially offered the NK1 regimen to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting based on internal recommendations. Only nausea and vomiting during cycles 1 and 2 were considered. Comparisons of nausea and vomiting by the antiemetic prophylaxis group were assessed using chi-square.
RESULTS
A total of 53 patients were included in the analysis. At cycle 1, 72% and 28% of patients received the 5-HT3 and NK1 prophylaxis, respectively. Overall, 58% reported nausea, with no differences between groups (58% vs. 60%; = 0.832), but with a trend for lower grade in the NK1 group (33.3% G1; 26.7% G2) compared to the 5-HT3 group (23.7% G1; 31.6% G2; 2.6% G3). Vomiting was reported by 21% and 0% of patients in the 5-HT3 and the NK1 group, respectively ( = 0.054). Among the 15 patients in the 5-HT3 group with nausea at cycle 1 who escalated to NK1 at cycle 2, nausea decreased from 100% to 53% ( = 0.022) and vomiting decreased from 47% to 13% ( = 0.046).
CONCLUSIONS
The NK1 regimen improved vomiting control at cycle 1 and, when introduced at cycle 2, significantly improved both nausea and vomiting. The biased NK1 selection for higher-risk patients may have dampened the differences between groups at cycle 1. These findings support enhanced control of T-DXd-related nausea and vomiting with NK1RA.
PubMed: 38529378
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1374547 -
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice :... Feb 2024Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommending palonosetron for the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were adapted for use...
INTRODUCTION
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommending palonosetron for the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were adapted for use at our institution. Palonosetron was restricted for use in patients experiencing breakthrough CINV and receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or undergoing stem cell transplant conditioning and in patients with refractory CINV receiving HEC. Given the significant cost of palonosetron, we aimed to determine the proportion of chemotherapy blocks where palonosetron use was discordant with the institutional policy or source CPG.
METHODS
A retrospective review of the health records of patients who received palonosetron between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020 was undertaken. Details of palonosetron use, antiemetic regimen and the date and time of each vomit during the acute and delayed phases were collected for each chemotherapy block where palonosetron was given. Discordance with the institutional policy and the source CPG was determined by assessing the indication for palonosetron and the dose. In the subset of chemotherapy blocks where information regarding vomiting episodes was available, the extent of acute phase chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control was reported.
RESULTS
Four hundred thirty-eight chemotherapy blocks, representing 122 patients (mean age 9 years), receiving 595 palonosetron doses were included. Palonosetron use was discordant with institutional policy during most (72%; 314/438) of the chemotherapy blocks analyzed. However, palonosetron use was concordant with the source CPG during most chemotherapy blocks (74%; 326/438). Complete CIV control during the acute phase was observed in 66% (195/295) of chemotherapy blocks where palonosetron was given, irrespective of concomitant antiemetics administered.
CONCLUSION
The majority of palonosetron use at our institution was discordant with institutional policy, but concordant with the source CPG. Our institutional policy has since been updated to be more aligned with the source CPG.
PubMed: 38425048
DOI: 10.1177/10781552241233489 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) May 2024The management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children remains challenging due to differences in the chemotherapy regimens, their relative... (Review)
Review
The management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children remains challenging due to differences in the chemotherapy regimens, their relative emetogenicity compared to that in adults and differences in drug metabolism and the available formulations. The common four classes of anti-emetics used for the treatment and prophylaxis of CINV in children include dexamethasone, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), and olanzapine. The appropriate dose of dexamethasone for CINV prophylaxis in children is unknown, with a significant variability in dosage ranging between 6 and 32 mg/m/day. The dose of dexamethasone is decreased by 30% when this drug is combined with (fos)aprepitant in children, in contrast to a decrease of 50% required in adults. The use of aprepitant in younger children (<12 years) is often hampered by the non-availability of oral suspension formulations in many countries; alternatively, 80 mg capsules are administered for 1-3 days in certain institutes to children weighing between 15 and 40 kg. Among the different 5HT3RAs, palonosetron is comparatively metabolized faster in children than in adults, requiring a higher dosage for similar efficacy to that achieved in adults. Olanzapine is a newer agent, used in doses between 0.1 and 0.14 mg/kg/day in children, with good anti-emetic efficacy, but has sedation and hyperglycemia as concerning adverse effects. Drug interactions between anti-emetics and between anti-emetics and chemotherapy/supportive agents (azole antifungals, cyclosporine, arsenic trioxide), especially QTc prolongation, should be considered during prescription.
PubMed: 38794186
DOI: 10.3390/ph17050616 -
Farmacia Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial... 2023Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
OBJECTIVE
Latest MASCC/ESMO guidelines of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute and delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was published in 2016 incorporating anthracycline schemes as highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), proposing triple antiemetic therapy to control nausea and vomiting. Likewise, they recommend triple therapy for carboplatin. The objectives of this study were to analyze the degree of concordance between guidelines and antiemetic prophylaxis used in the Chemotherapy Outpatient Unit in patients undergoing treatment with HEC and carboplatin, to evaluate its effectiveness and to determine the savings due to the use of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) oral (or) with intravenous (iv) dexamethasone (NEPAd) compared to iv Fosaprepitant with ondansetron and dexamethasone (FOD iv).
METHODS
Prospective observational study recording demographic variables, chemotherapy protocol, tumor location, patient emetogenic risk, antiemetic regimen prescribed, concordance with the MASCC/ESMO guideline, and effectiveness, evaluated by MASCC survey, use of rescue medication and visits to the Emergency Department or hospitalization due to emesis. A cost minimization pharmacoeconomic study was carried out.
RESULTS
61 patients were included; 70% women; median age 60.5. Platinum schemes were more frequent in period 1, being 87.5% compared to 67.6% in period 2. Anthracycline schemes were 21.6% and 10% respectively in each period. A 21.1% of the antiemetic regimens did not coincide with the MASCC/ESMO recommendations, being entirely in period 1. The score of the effectiveness questionnaires was total protection in 90.9% in acute nausea, from 100% in acute vomiting and delayed nausea, and 72.7% in delayed vomiting. The frequency of use of rescue medication was 18.7% in period 1 and was not necessary in period 2. No visits to the emergency room or admissions were detected in any of the periods.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of NEPAd led to a 28% reduction in costs with respect to the use of FOD. A high level of concordance was obtained in both periods between the latest published guideline and healthcare practice in our field. Surveys carried out on patients seem to suggest that both antiemetic therapies have similar effectiveness in clinical practice. The inclusion of NEPAd has led to a reduction in costs, positioning itself as an efficient option.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Male; Antiemetics; Carboplatin; Anthracyclines; Nausea; Vomiting; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Dexamethasone; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 37500396
DOI: 10.1016/j.farma.2023.06.007 -
Kidney360 May 2024Cisplatin is an effective first line therapy for a variety of cancers. Cisplatin is highly emetogenic and resulting volume depletion can contribute to acute kidney...
BACKGROUND
Cisplatin is an effective first line therapy for a variety of cancers. Cisplatin is highly emetogenic and resulting volume depletion can contribute to acute kidney injury (AKI). Anti-emetic drugs such as 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) are commonly prescribed to prevent this complication. Preclinical studies suggest first generation 5-HT3RAs may alter the renal clearance and increase cisplatin toxicity. This retrospective study evaluated whether different 5-HT3RAs modify the risk of AKI in patients receiving cisplatin.
METHODS
Patients with cancer who received cisplatin between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016 were included. Patients over 18 years old with available data for baseline and post-treatment serum creatinine, cisplatin cumulative dose, and administration of 5-HT3RAs including first generation (ondansetron, granisetron, and ramosetron) and second generation (palonosetron) were analyzed. AKI defined as 1.5x increase in serum creatinine. Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess univariable associations between baseline covariates and AKI, and logistic regression for multivariable associations with AKI.
RESULTS
Of 8703 patients identified with cisplatin exposure, 6889 were included. A total of 3881 (56.3%) patients received at least one 5-HT3RA, including palonosetron (3750, 54.4%), ondansetron (1399, 20.3%) and granisetron (11, 0.2%). AKI developed in 1666 (24.2%) patients following cisplatin. Patients who received any 5-HT3RAs were less likely to experience AKI as compared to patients that did not (22.6% vs 26.2%, p=0.001). Older age, male gender, African ethnicity, and cumulative cisplatin dose were univariately associated with higher risk for AKI (P<0.001). After adjusting for these variables, use of any of these antiemetic drugs was protective for AKI (OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.94; P= 0.003) with no difference detected between type of 5-HT3RA.
CONCLUSION
Nephrotoxicity continues to be a concern following cisplatin therapy. Given its emetogenic nature, use of antiemetic drugs such as 5-HT3RAs can lessen emesis and lower risk of kidney injury. This retrospective analysis supports use of any 5-HT3RAs to lower risk of AKI.
PubMed: 38814726
DOI: 10.34067/KID.0000000000000464