-
Medicine Oct 2023To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone + palonosetron in the prevention of post-embolization syndrome after drug-eluting beads transcatheter...
To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone + palonosetron in the prevention of post-embolization syndrome after drug-eluting beads transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (D-TACE). The data of 278 patients who received D-TACE from January 2018 to December 2021 were collected and divided into 2 groups: D-TACE group (N = 145) and D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group (N = 133). The incidence of post-embolization syndrome and infection after D-TACE was assessed in both groups. Incidence of abdominal pain: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 56.6% versus 40.6%, P = .008; incidence of fever: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 40.0% versus 14.3%, P = .000; incidence of nausea: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 61.4% versus 39.8%, P = .001; incidence of vomiting: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 48.3% versus 21.1%, P = .000; incidence of infection: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 1.4% versus 1.5%, P = .931. The combined use of dexamethasone and palonosetron before D-TACE can effectively reduce the incidence of post-embolization syndrome and reduce the degree of side effects, but it will not increase the risk of infection.
Topics: Humans; Palonosetron; Antiemetics; Retrospective Studies; Dexamethasone; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Liver Neoplasms; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Vomiting
PubMed: 37800841
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000035433 -
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 Oncology Pharmacy Practice :... Aug 2023Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the adverse events that most affects oncologic patients' quality of life. Carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 belongs to...
INTRODUCTION
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the adverse events that most affects oncologic patients' quality of life. Carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 belongs to agents with high emetic risk (moderate risk in ASCO guidelines). We aimed to compare the effectiveness of netupitant/palonosetron and dexamethasone triple combination (TC) therapy versus ondansetron and dexamethasone double combination (DC) therapy as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients with carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. As a secondary endpoint, in TC group we evaluated the effectiveness of changing NEPA administration timing from 1 h to 15 min before chemotherapy.
METHODS
Open-label prospective study conducted in a tertiary-care hospital in patients receiving carboplatin AUC ≥ 4. CINV was evaluated using MASCC antiemetic tool, in acute (<24 h) and delayed phase (24-120 h). Results were analyzed using χ test.
RESULTS
Two-hundred four completed questionnaires (CQ) were analyzed (76 in DC and 128 in TC). The proportion of patients who remained emesis-free was superior for TC-treated group compared to DC, either in acute (99.2% vs 92.1%, = 0.0115) and delayed phase (97.6% vs 90.7%, = 0.043). Likewise, a higher proportion of TC-treated patients compared to DC remained nausea-free for the first 24 h after treatment (90.6% vs 71%, = 0.0004) and between 24 and 120 h (82.3% vs 62.7%, = 0.0025). The change of NEPA administration time showed similar effectiveness in terms of CINV control (81.6% vs 74.5%, = 0.70).
CONCLUSIONS
TC showed superiority in early and delayed CINV control in carboplatin AUC ≥ 4 regimens, with no significant differences among cancer types. Change in NEPA administration timing has beneficial implications; it allows NEPA to be administered at hospitals before chemotherapy session.
PubMed: 37563932
DOI: 10.1177/10781552231194077 -
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 -
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 -
The Journal of Pharmacology and... Aug 2023
Topics: Humans; Palonosetron; Vomiting; Nausea; Neoplasms; Quinuclidines; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 37460159
DOI: 10.1124/jpet.123.001644 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Oct 2023Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major problem after surgery. Even with double prophylactic therapy including dexamethasone and a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major problem after surgery. Even with double prophylactic therapy including dexamethasone and a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, the incidence is still high in many at-risk patients. Fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is an effective antiemetic, but its efficacy and safety in combination antiemetic therapy for preventing PONV remain unclear.
METHODS
In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, 1154 participants at high risk of PONV and undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery were randomly assigned to either a fosaprepitant group (n=577) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg i.v. dissolved in 0.9% saline 150 ml, or a placebo group (n=577) receiving 0.9% saline 150 ml before anaesthesia induction. Dexamethasone 5 mg i.v. and palonosetron 0.075 i.v. mg were each administered in both groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV (defined as nausea, retching, or vomiting) during the first 24 postoperative hours.
RESULTS
The incidence of PONV during the first 24 postoperative hours was lower in the fosaprepitant group (32.4% vs 48.7%; adjusted risk difference -16.9% [95% confidence interval: -22.4 to -11.4%]; adjusted risk ratio 0.65 [95% CI: 0.57 to 0.76]; P<0.001). There were no differences in severe adverse events between groups, but the incidence of intraoperative hypotension was higher (38.0% vs 31.7%, P=0.026) and intraoperative hypertension (40.6% vs 49.2%, P=0.003) was lower in the fosaprepitant group.
CONCLUSIONS
Fosaprepitant added to dexamethasone and palonosetron reduced the incidence of PONV in patients at high risk of PONV undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. Notably, it increased the incidence of intraoperative hypotension.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
NCT04853147.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Antiemetics; Palonosetron; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Saline Solution; Laparoscopy; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37423834
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.06.029 -
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: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anthracyclines; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Carboplatin; Dexamethasone; Nausea; Vomiting; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 37268481
DOI: 10.1016/j.farma.2023.04.003 -
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 Oncology Pharmacy Practice :... Mar 2024The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting...
The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) patients receiving BEAM therapy. This phase II, prospective, intention-to-treat, single-center, single-arm study involved 43 adult patients who received NEPA and dexamethasone for the prevention of CINV due to BEAM conditioning chemotherapy. An interim analysis, performed after 13 patients, determined utility versus futility, and supported continuation to full enrollment. Descriptive statistics were used to report complete response (CR), complete protection, incidence of emesis, and administration of rescue agents. A Kaplan-Meier curve depicted time to first emesis and first rescue medication. Patients self-reported levels of daily nausea descriptively via a CINV Questionnaire. By study end, 13 of 43 patients achieved a CR with an average of 10.6 emesis-free days (SD 0.95) over the 11-day observation period, with no emetic events in any patient during the acute/chemotherapy phase. Nausea was well-controlled throughout the acute therapy phase (Day 1-6) and increased during the delayed phase (Day 7-11) with a peak mean level of 2.79/10 at Day 10. Aside from lower grade (≤2), headaches, constipation, and diarrhea were the most widely reported adverse effects. : The combination of NEPA and dexamethasone is safe and effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving BEAM conditioning therapy prior to HCT. The regimen demonstrated greater effectiveness in the acute phase versus the delayed phase, with low levels of nausea throughout the study period and complete emesis prevention during chemotherapy.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Palonosetron; Antiemetics; Prospective Studies; Vomiting; Nausea; Quinuclidines; Dexamethasone; Antineoplastic Agents; Cell Transplantation; Piperazines; Pyridines; Benzeneacetamides
PubMed: 37151021
DOI: 10.1177/10781552231173863