-
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 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2023Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common complications after general anesthesia. The traditional comprehensive management of PONV usually uses...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common complications after general anesthesia. The traditional comprehensive management of PONV usually uses one or two drugs, but this regimen fails to meet the requirements of the latest version of PONV guidelines. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) on high-risk PONV patients who are undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery.
METHODS
In total, 162 high-risk PONV patients were randomly divided into an experimental group ( = 81) and a control group ( = 81). Both groups were injected with 4 mg of dexamethasone and 0.25 mg of palonosetron. In the experimental group, Nei-guan (PC6) and He-gu (LI4) were stimulated by a transcutaneous acupoint electrical stimulation instrument (HANS200E) 30 min before the surgery. The control group also received electrodes but no stimulation. Variance analysis and rank sum test were used to compare the differences between the two groups.
RESULTS
The results of the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, NRS score, degree of abdominal distension, and time to first flatus in the experimental group were lower than those in the control group. Nursing satisfaction of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
The study demonstrates that TEAS combined with dexamethasone and palonosetron can effectively prevent PONV, reduce postoperative abdominal distension and postoperative pain, and shorten the first postoperative flatus time in high-risk patients with PONV. At the same time, it can improve nursing satisfaction.
PubMed: 36769839
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12031192 -
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and... Dec 2022We compared the use of palonosetron with combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone in prevention of PONV in patients undergoing middle ear surgery under general...
Comparison of Palonosetron with Combination of Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in the Prevention of Post Operative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Middle Ear Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Trial.
We compared the use of palonosetron with combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone in prevention of PONV in patients undergoing middle ear surgery under general anaesthesia. Prospective, randomized study was conducted including 90 adult patients who received either palonosetron (0.075 mg) (Group P) or combination of palonosetron (0.075 mg) and dexamethasone (8 mg) (Group PD). The primary outcome was incidence of nausea, vomiting and complete response. Secondary parameters were time to receive first rescue antiemetic, total dose required, patient's satisfaction, postoperative pain scores and total dose of rescue analgesic. The incidence of nausea was 15.5% and 8.8% ( = 0.522) and vomiting was 6.7% and 2.2% ( = 0.610) in group P and PD, respectively Complete response (CR) was observed in 84.4% patients in group P and 91% patients in group PD ( = 0.522). Combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone is not superior to use of palonosetron alone for PONV prevention.
PubMed: 36742568
DOI: 10.1007/s12070-020-01996-6 -
Scientific Reports Jan 2023We demonstrated the non-inferiority of a dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing (single-dose) regimen with NEPA, a netupitant/palonosetron fixed combination, for preventing... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
We demonstrated the non-inferiority of a dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing (single-dose) regimen with NEPA, a netupitant/palonosetron fixed combination, for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by cisplatin. This pre-planned exploratory analysis assessed the effect of the DEX-sparing regimen on a patient's food intake. Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m) were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either no further DEX (DEX1), or oral DEX (4 mg BID) on days 2-4 (DEX4). Patient-reported endpoint maintenance of usual daily food intake was assessed during the 5-days post-chemotherapy. The relationship between usual daily food intake and CINV control, pre-chemotherapy self-rated food intake and BMI-adjusted weight loss (WL) were evaluated. One-hundred fifty-two patients (76/group) were assessable. The proportion of patients reporting maintenance of usual daily food intake was similar in both groups: 69.7% (95% CI, 58.6-78.9) for DEX1 vs. 72.4% (95% CI, 61.4-81.2) for DEX4. Only CINV control was significantly associated with maintenance of usual daily food intake (P ≤ 0.001) during the overall phase. The DEX-sparing regimen does not adversely affect patient-reported daily food intake post-chemotherapy. The current analysis adds further insights into antiemetic efficacy of DEX sparing beyond day 1 in the challenging setting of cisplatin.Trial registration: The parent study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04201769).
Topics: Humans; Cisplatin; Palonosetron; Antiemetics; Vomiting; Nausea; Dexamethasone; Eating; Lung; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 36690734
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-28464-9 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Dec 2022This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron with... (Review)
Review
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Palonosetron and Ramosetron in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.
This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron with that of ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A total of 17 randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV were included. The primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV, which were measured in early, late, and overall phases. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of the administration time of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and divided into two phases: early phase and the end of surgery. A total of 17 studies with 1823 patients were included in the final analysis. The incidence of retching (relative risk [RR] = 0.525; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.390 to 0.707) and late POV (RR = 0.604; 95% CI = 0.404 to 0.903) was significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ramosetron group. No significant differences were demonstrated in the incidence of PON, PONV, complete response, use of antiemetics, and adverse effects. Subgroup analysis showed that palonosetron was superior to ramosetron in terms of early PON, late PON, overall POV, and use of rescue antiemetics when they were administered early; in terms of retching, regardless of the timing of administration. Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in terms of early PON when they were administered late. The prophylactic administration of palonosetron was more effective than that of ramosetron in preventing the development of retching and late POV. In this meta-analysis, no significant differences in PONV prevention between the two drugs were demonstrated. Further studies are required to validate the outcomes of our study.
PubMed: 36675743
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13010082 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2022Chemotherapeutic agent-induced nausea and vomiting are the severe adverse effects that are induced by their stimulations on the peripheral and/or central emetic nerve...
Chemotherapeutic agent-induced nausea and vomiting are the severe adverse effects that are induced by their stimulations on the peripheral and/or central emetic nerve pathways. Even though ginger has been widely used as an herbal medicine to treat emesis, mechanisms underlying its neuronal actions are still less clear. The present study aimed to determine the chemotherapeutic agent vincristine-induced effect on gastroesophageal vagal afferent nerve endings and the potential inhibitory role of ginger constituent 6-shogaol on such response. Two-photon neuron imaging studies were performed in ex vivo gastroesophageal-vagal preparations from Pirt-GCaMP6 transgenic mice. Vincristine was applied to the gastroesophageal vagal afferent nerve endings, and the evoked calcium influxes in their intact nodose ganglion neuron somas were recorded. The responsive nodose neuron population was first characterized, and the inhibitory effects of 5-HT3 antagonist palonosetron, TRPA1 antagonist HC-030031, and ginger constituent 6-shogaol were then determined. Vincristine application at gastroesophageal vagal afferent nerve endings elicited intensive calcium influxes in a sub-population of vagal ganglion neurons. These neurons were characterized by their positive responses to P2X receptor agonist α,β-methylene ATP and TRPA1 agonist cinnamaldehyde, suggesting their nociceptive placodal nodose C-fiber neuron lineages. Pretreatment with TRPA1 selective blocker HC-030031 inhibited vincristine-induced calcium influxes in gastroesophageal nodose C-fiber neurons, indicating that TRPA1 played a functional role in mediating vincristine-induced activation response. Such inhibitory effect was comparable to that from 5-HT3 receptor antagonist palonosetron. Alternatively, pretreatment with ginger constituent 6-shogaol significantly attenuated vincristine-induced activation response. The present study provides new evidence that chemotherapeutic agent vincristine directly activates vagal nodose nociceptive C-fiber neurons at their peripheral nerve endings in the upper gastrointestinal tract. This activation response requires both TRPA1 and 5-HT3 receptors and can be attenuated by ginger constituent 6-shogaol.
Topics: Mice; Animals; Zingiber officinale; Vincristine; Calcium; Palonosetron; Esophagus; Action Potentials; Mice, Transgenic
PubMed: 36364288
DOI: 10.3390/molecules27217465 -
Clinical Pharmacology in Drug... Dec 2022Oral NEPA is the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK RA]) and palonosetron (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Challenges in the Development of Intravenous Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists: Results of a Safety and Pharmacokinetics Dose-Finding, Phase 1 Study of Intravenous Fosnetupitant.
Oral NEPA is the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK RA]) and palonosetron (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist [5-HT RA]). Intravenous (IV) NEPA, containing fosnetupitant, a water-soluble N-phosphoryloxymethyl prodrug of netupitant, has been developed. Fosnetupitant does not require excipients or solubility enhancers often used to increase IV NK RA water solubility, preventing the occurrence of hypersensitivity and infusion-site reactions associated with these products. In this phase 1 study, subjects received a 30-minute placebo or fosnetupitant (17.6-353 mg) infusion and an oral NEPA or placebo capsule, with 2-sequence crossover treatment for fosnetupitant 118- to 353-mg dose cohorts. IV fosnetupitant safety and pharmacokinetics were evaluated, and its equivalence to an oral netupitant 300-mg dose was defined. Overall, 158 healthy volunteers were enrolled. All adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate in intensity. Doppler-identified infusion-site asymptomatic thrombosis occurred in 5.4% (fosnetupitant) and 1.2% (oral NEPA) of subjects. The frequency or number of treatment-related AEs did not increase with ascending fosnetupitant doses. The most common treatment-related AEs were headache (fosnetupitant, 8.1%; oral NEPA, 12.7%) and constipation (fosnetupitant, 1.4%; oral NEPA, 7.5%). A fosnetupitant 235-mg dose was equivalent, in terms of netupitant exposure, to 300-mg oral netupitant. The safety profile of a single fosnetupitant 235-mg infusion was similar to that of single-dose oral NEPA.
Topics: Humans; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting; Water
PubMed: 36263927
DOI: 10.1002/cpdd.1183 -
Cureus Sep 2022Background Female gender, young age, first chemotherapy cycle, and low alcohol intake have all been linked to an increased risk of nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy....
The Effectiveness of an Oral Fixed-Dose Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron (NEPA) in Patients With Multiple Risk Factors for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Multicenter, Observational Indian Study.
Background Female gender, young age, first chemotherapy cycle, and low alcohol intake have all been linked to an increased risk of nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy. We intended to see if netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) could prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with risk factors such as age, gender, chemotherapy cycle number, and alcohol consumption history. Methods In this retrospective study, chemotherapy-naïve patients who were prescribed netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.50 mg) (NEPA) before the first cycle of chemotherapy were analyzed for overall, acute, and delayed phases of complete response (CR), complete protection (CP), and control. Results In the acute phase (AP), delayed phase (DP), and overall phase (OP), complete response was 88.23%, 86.27%, and 86.27%, respectively; complete protection was 80.39%, 78.43%, and 76.47%, respectively; and complete control was 76.47%, 72.54%, and 70.58%, respectively, in the whole population (i.e., 51 patients). Complete response, protection, and control in the overall phase were achieved by 86.27%, 72.72%, and 68.18% of patients who received the highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen (i.e., 44 patients), respectively. Conclusion NEPA provided a consistent magnitude of benefit for patients who are at high risk, receiving HEC and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), and having good control in the acute, delayed, and overall phases of CINV.
PubMed: 36259011
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.29094 -
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