-
Anesthesia, Essays and Researches 2022Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are one of the common distressing conditions after anesthesia. The PONV are related to several potential risk factors are...
Comparison of Palonosetron Versus Palonosetron and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Middle Ear Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Study.
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are one of the common distressing conditions after anesthesia. The PONV are related to several potential risk factors are patient related, anesthesia related, and surgery related. In surgery-related risk, middle ear surgery is associated with a high incidence of PONV.
AIMS
This study aimed to compare the efficiency of palonosetron versus palonosetron with dexamethasone in the prevention of PONV in middle ear surgeries.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The data were presented as descriptive statistics for continuous variables and percentages for categorical variables and were subjected to Z-test/Chi-square test/Fisher's exact test. The value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
Demographic parts in comparison to age, duration of surgery, and duration of anesthesia were similar in both the groups. Our study showed that the incidence of PONV during 0-6 h was 38% ( = 19) in Group A and 12% ( = 6) in Group B and the incidence during 6-12 h postoperatively was 14% ( = 7) in Group A and 8% ( = 4) in Group B. During 12-24 h, the incidence was 8% ( = 4) and 6% ( = 3) in Group A and B, respectively. Hence, the difference of total early PONV in Group A was 60% ( = 30) and in Group B, it was 26% ( = 13) which was statistically significant ( < 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
The above result proves that palonosetron and dexamethasone group is superior in the prevention of PONV in middle ear surgery.
PubMed: 36249139
DOI: 10.4103/aer.aer_131_21 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Nov 2022The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to...
Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective.
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings.
METHODS
A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained.
RESULTS
NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125.
CONCLUSION
By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.
Topics: Humans; Palonosetron; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Aprepitant; Emetics; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Nausea; Antiemetics; Internationality; Quinuclidines
PubMed: 36074186
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07339-1 -
National Journal of Maxillofacial... 2022The objective is to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic single intravenous dose of palonosetron in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following...
OBJECTIVE
The objective is to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic single intravenous dose of palonosetron in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following oral and maxillofacial surgical interventions performed through an intraoral approach under general anesthesia (GA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A prospective study was conducted on 100 subjects who underwent intraoral surgical procedures for the management of maxillofacial trauma, pathology, dentofacial anomalies, and deformities under GA. All subjects received a prophylactic single intravenous dose of 0.075 mg palonosetron along with premedication. Predisposing factors for PONV such as patient age, gender, Apfel risk score, history of motion sickness, smoking, type of procedure, and administration of postoperative opioids were taken into consideration. All the patients were monitored for PONV for the 1 24 h postoperatively (PO). First, at an interval of 30 min for 1 4 h and then at every 2 h interval for next 8 h followed by monitoring every 6 h interval till 24 h. Time and frequency of rescue medication were noted.
RESULTS
Seventy-nine percentage subjects did not have PONV. 15% subjects had a single episode of vomiting PO which could be attributed to multiple intra oral surgical sites performed as well as longer duration of exposure to anesthetic agents in addition to providing opioid analgesics for the management of postoperative pain. Only 6% subjects needed rescue antiemetic drug. Palonosetron did not show any significant changes in cardiac status and serum profile.
CONCLUSION
Palonosetron is effective in the management of PONV for maxillofacial surgical procedures performed through an intraoral approach under GA.
PubMed: 36051795
DOI: 10.4103/njms.NJMS_346_21 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor...
Primary versus secondary antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with a doublet or triplet combination regimen including oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan plus fluoropyrimidines: A propensity score matched analysis.
AIM
The aim of the current study is to investigate the impact of primary compared to secondary chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis with NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA) in patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies and treated with oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimens.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
Clinical data of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, treated with an oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based doublet or triplet regimen as neo/adjuvant or advanced-line treatment, and who received NK1-RA as primary (from the first cycle of treatment) or secondary (after the onset of CINV with a previous regimen with 5HT3-RA and dexamethasone) prophylaxis for CINV, were retrospectively collected in an observational study involving 16 Italian centers. A propensity score matching was performed by taking into account the following stratification factors: sex (male vs. female), age (< vs. ≥70 years old), overweight (body mass index, BMI < vs. ≥25), underweight (BMI < vs. ≥19), disease spread (early vs. advanced/metastatic), tumor type (esophagogastric cancer vs. the rest, hepatobiliary tumor vs. the rest, colorectal cancer vs. the rest), type of NK1-RA used as primary/secondary prophylaxis (netupitant-palonosetron vs. fosaprepitant/aprepitant), concomitant use of opioids (yes vs. no), concomitant use of antidepressant/antipsychotic drugs (yes vs. no), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at the start of NK1-RA treatment (0 vs. 1-2), and intensity of chemotherapy regimen (doublet vs. triplet).
RESULTS
Among 409 patients included from January 2015 to January 2022 and eligible for analysis, 284 (69%) and 125 (31%) were treated with NK1-RA as primary and secondary antiemetic prophylaxis, respectively. After matching, primary NK1-RA use was not associated with higher rates of protection from emesis regardless the emesis phase (acute phase, p = 0.34; delayed phase, p = 0.14; overall phase, p = 0.80). On the other hand, a lower rate of relevant nausea (p = 0.02) and need for rescue antiemetic therapy (p = 0.000007) in the overall phase was found in primary NK1-RA users. Furthermore, a higher rate of both complete antiemetic response (p = 0.00001) and complete antiemetic protection (p = 0.00007) in the overall phase was more frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users. Finally, chemotherapy delays (p = 0.000009) and chemotherapy dose reductions (p = 0.0000006) were less frequently observed in primary NK1-RA users.
CONCLUSION
In patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies, a primary CINV prophylaxis with NK1-RA, 5HT3-RA, and dexamethasone might be appropriate, particularly in those situations at higher risk of emesis and in which it is important to avoid dose delays and/or dose reductions, keeping a proper dose intensity of chemotherapy drugs.
PubMed: 36033477
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.935826 -
Systematic Reviews Aug 2022Systematic reviews attempt to gather all available evidence. Controversy exists regarding effort and benefit of including study results presented at conferences only. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews attempt to gather all available evidence. Controversy exists regarding effort and benefit of including study results presented at conferences only. We recently published a Cochrane network meta-analysis (NMA) including 585 randomized controlled trials comparing drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Studies published as conference abstracts only were excluded. This study aimed to include all eligible studies published as abstracts only, assessing their added value regarding reporting quality and effect on the review's interpretation.
METHODS
Conference abstracts were searched in the review's excluded studies and conference proceedings of anaesthesiologic societies. We assessed their reporting quality regarding review's eligibility criteria, Cochrane 'risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0, and adherence to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for abstracts. Abstracts were included in sensitivity NMA, and impact on the NMA structure was investigated.
RESULTS
We identified 90 abstracts. A total of 14% (13/90) were eligible. A total of 86% (77/90) are awaiting classification due to insufficient reporting of review's eligibility criteria. In abstracts awaiting classification, sufficient information was missing on standardization of anaesthesia in 71% (55/77), age of participants in 56% (43/77), and outcome details in 46% (36/77). A total of 73% (66/90) of abstracts lacked sufficient information on 15/25 data extraction items. Reported study characteristics of abstracts were comparable to included studies of the review. A total of 62% (56/90) of abstract trials were assessed as overall high risk of bias due to poor reporting. Median adherence to CONSORT for abstracts was 24% (IQR, 18 to 29%). Six of the 13 eligible abstracts reported relevant outcome data in sufficient detail for NMA on seven outcomes of the Cochrane review. Inclusion of abstracts did not substantially change the network structure, network effect estimates, ranking of treatments, or the conclusion. Certainty of evidence for headache on palonosetron use was upgraded from very low to low.
CONCLUSIONS
Most conference abstracts on PONV were insufficiently reported regarding review's narrow inclusion criteria and could not be included in NMA. The resource-intensive search and evaluation of abstracts did not substantially extent the full-text evidence base of the review, given the few adequately reported abstracts. Conferences should oblige authors to adhere to CONSORT for abstracts.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 36028879
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-02048-6 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2022Bile salts are a category of natural chiral surfactants which have ever been used as the surfactant and chiral selector for the separation of many chiral compounds by...
Bile salts are a category of natural chiral surfactants which have ever been used as the surfactant and chiral selector for the separation of many chiral compounds by micellar electrokinetic chromatography (MEKC). In our previous works, the application of sodium cholate (SC) in the separation of four stereoisomers of palonosetron (PALO) by MEKC has been studied systematically. In this work, the parameters of other bile salts, including sodium taurocholate (STC), sodium deoxycholate (SDC), and sodium taurodeoxycholate (STDC) in the separation of PALO stereoisomers by MEKC were measured and compared with SC. It was found that all of four bile salts provide chiral recognition for both pairs of enantiomers, as well as achiral selectivity for diastereomers of different degrees. The structure of steroidal ring of bile salts has a greater impact on the separation than the structure of the side chain. The varying separation results by different bile salts were elucidated based on the measured parameters. A model to describe the contributions of the mobility difference of solutes in the aqueous phase and the selectivity of micelles to the chiral and achiral separation of stereoisomers was introduced. Additionally, a new approach to measure the mobility of micelles without enough solubility for hydrophobic markers was proposed, which is necessary for the calculation of separation parameters in MEKC. Under the guidance of derived equations, the separation by SDC and STDC was significantly improved by using lower surfactant concentrations. The complete separation of four stereoisomers was achieved in less than 3.5 min by using 4.0 mM of SDC. In addition, 30.0 mM of STC also provided the complete resolution of four stereoisomers due to the balance of different separation mechanisms. Its applicability for the analysis of a small amount of enantiomeric impurities in the presence of a high concentration of the effective ingredient was validated by a real sample.
Topics: Bile Acids and Salts; Chromatography; Chromatography, Micellar Electrokinetic Capillary; Deoxycholic Acid; Micelles; Palonosetron; Sodium Cholate; Stereoisomerism; Surface-Active Agents
PubMed: 36014471
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27165233 -
BMC Cancer Aug 2022The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Evaluating the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily functioning in patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) in the cisplatin setting: results from a randomized phase 3 study.
BACKGROUND
The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).
METHODS
Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis.
RESULTS
In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL.
CONCLUSION
Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04201769 . Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzeneacetamides; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Humans; Nausea; Palonosetron; Piperazines; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting
PubMed: 35999527
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10018-3 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Nov 2022To identify effective and safe interventions to prevent acute phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult and pediatric patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To identify effective and safe interventions to prevent acute phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult and pediatric patients.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials evaluating interventions to prevent acute CINV. Outcomes assessed were complete chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) control, complete chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) control, complete CINV control, and discontinuation of antiemetics due to adverse effects.
RESULTS
The search identified 65,172 citations; 744 were evaluated at full-text, and 295 (25 pediatric) met eligibility criteria. In patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), complete CIV (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.44) and CIN (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.62) control improved when olanzapine was added. The addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) to a corticosteroid plus a serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) also improved complete CIV (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.08-1.14) and CIN (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.08) control. Compared to granisetron/ondansetron, palonosetron provided improved complete CIV control when the 5HT3RA was given alone or when combined with dexamethasone. In patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), dexamethasone plus a 5HT3RA improved complete CIV control compared to a 5HT3RA alone (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21-1.39). Only a single meta-analysis evaluating the safety outcome was possible.
CONCLUSIONS
For patients receiving HEC, various antiemetic regimens improved CIV and CIN control. For patients receiving MEC, administration of a 5HT3RA plus dexamethasone improved CIV control. Analysis of antiemetic safety was constrained by lack of data.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Antiemetics; Neoplasms; Nausea; Vomiting; Dexamethasone; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 35953731
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07287-w -
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 Jul 2022This paper presents a novel potentiometric approach for the determination of palonosetron HCl using two sensors; ionophore-free and ionophore-doped ones. The two sensors...
This paper presents a novel potentiometric approach for the determination of palonosetron HCl using two sensors; ionophore-free and ionophore-doped ones. The two sensors successfully determined the cited drug in the range of 1 × 10-1 × 10 M with respective Nernstian slopes of 54.9 ± 0.25 and 59.3 ± 0.16 mV/decade. Incorporating calix[8]arene as an ionophore resulted in a lower detection limit (LOD = 3.1 × 10 M) and enhanced selectivity when compared to the ionophore-free sensor (LOD = 7.9 × 10 M). This modification was also associated with faster response for the ionophore-doped sensor (response time = 20 s) compared to the ionophore-free one (response time = 30 s). The two sensors showed a stable response over a pH range of 3.0-8.0. They successfully determined palonosetron HCl in presence of its oxidative degradation products. They were also used for direct determination of the drug in commercially available parenteral solution without any interference from other dosage forms' additives.
Topics: Ionophores; Palonosetron; Potentiometry
PubMed: 35902725
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-17349-y