-
Cureus Mar 2022Background Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in susceptible patients can be unacceptably high (70-80% reported incidence). This study was designed to...
Background Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in susceptible patients can be unacceptably high (70-80% reported incidence). This study was designed to evaluate the effect of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Methodology In this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, non-smoking females aged 18-70 years, weighing 40-90 kg, and posted for elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries were enrolled into ondansetron (Group A, n = 65) and palonosetron (Group B, n = 65) groups. Palonosetron (1 mcg/kg IV) or ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg IV) were administered just before induction. Postoperatively, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, PONV (scored on a scale of 0-3), need for rescue antiemetic, complete response, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects were evaluated up to 48 h following surgery. Normally distributed continuous variables were compared using Student's t-test. In addition, the Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test were used to compare nominal categorical data as deemed appropriate. P-value <0.05 was observed as statistically significant. Results The overall PONV scores and postoperative nausea scores during 0-2 and 24-48 hours were comparable, but PONV scores (p = 0.023) and postoperative nausea scores (p = 0.010) during 2-24 hours were significantly lesser in Group B compared to Group A. There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative vomiting score or retching during 0-48 hours. The amount of first-line rescue antiemetic used during 2-24 hours was significantly higher in Group A (56%) than in Group B (31%) (p = 0.012; p <0.05). A complete response to the drug during 2-24 hours was significantly higher (p = 0.023) in Group B (63%) compared to Group A (40%), whereas response was comparable during 0-2 and 24-48 hours. Both groups had a comparable incidence of adverse effects and patient satisfaction scores. Conclusion Palonosetron has a superior anti-nausea effect, less need for rescue antiemetics, and lesser incidence of total PONV compared to ondansetron during 2-24h and comparable effect to ondansetron during 0-2h and 24-48h postoperative period in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.
PubMed: 35505760
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.23615 -
International Journal of Critical... 2023The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is quite high after laparoscopic surgeries. This study endeavors to compare the efficacy of the combination of...
A comparison of prophylactic antiemetic therapy with palonosetron and dexamethasone as single-agents or in combination in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: A randomized trial.
BACKGROUND
The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is quite high after laparoscopic surgeries. This study endeavors to compare the efficacy of the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone with that of either drug alone in the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries.
METHODS
This randomized, parallel-group trial was done on ninety adults of American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II patients aged 18-60 years undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of thirty patients each. Group P ( = 30) received palonosetron 0.075 mg intravenously (iv), Group D ( = 30) received dexamethasone 8 mg iv and Group P + D ( = 30) received palonosetron 0.075 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg iv. The primary outcome was incidence of PONV in 24 h, and the secondary outcome was a number of rescue antiemetics required. To compare the proportions in the groups, unpaired -test, Mann-Whitney -test, Chi-square test, or Fisher's exact test was applied.
RESULTS
We found that the overall incidence of PONV was 46.7% in Group P, 50% in Group D, and 43.3% in Group P + D during the first 24 h. Rescue antiemetic was required in 27% of the patients in Group P and Group D compared to 23% of the patients in Group P + D and twice in 3% of the patients in Group P, 7% of the patients in Group D, and none in Group P + D which were not significant.
CONCLUSIONS
The combination therapy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone did not significantly reduce the incidence of PONV when compared with either drug alone.
PubMed: 37180300
DOI: 10.4103/ijciis.ijciis_150_20 -
Structure (London, England : 1993) Oct 2020Inaccurately perceived as niche drugs, antiemetics are key elements of cancer treatment alleviating the most dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. Serotonin 5-HT3...
Inaccurately perceived as niche drugs, antiemetics are key elements of cancer treatment alleviating the most dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. Serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are the most commonly prescribed class of drugs to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. These antagonists have been clinically successful drugs since the 1980s, yet our understanding of how they operate at the molecular level has been hampered by the difficulty of obtaining structures of drug-receptor complexes. Here, we report the cryoelectron microscopy structure of the palonosetron-bound 5-HT3 receptor. We investigate the binding of palonosetron, granisetron, dolasetron, ondansetron, and cilansetron using molecular dynamics, covering the whole set of antagonists used in clinical practice. The structural and computational results yield detailed atomic insight into the binding modes of the drugs. In light of our data, we establish a comprehensive framework underlying the inhibition mechanism by the -setron drug family.
Topics: Animals; Antiemetics; Binding Sites; Cryoelectron Microscopy; Hydrogen Bonding; Mice; Molecular Dynamics Simulation; Palonosetron; Protein Conformation; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Serotonin; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists
PubMed: 32726573
DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2020.07.004 -
Cancer Research and Treatment Jul 2020The purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to compare ramosetron (RAM), aprepitant (APR), and dexamethasone (DEX) [RAD] with palonosetron (PAL), APR, and DEX [PAD] in controlling highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)-induced nausea and vomiting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RAD or PAD:RAM (0.3 mg intravenously) or PAL (0.25 mg intravenously) D1, combined with APR (125 mg orally, D1 and 80 mg orally, D2-3) and DEX (12 mg orally or intravenously, D1 and 8 mg orally, D2-4). Patients were stratified by sex, cisplatin-based chemotherapy, and administration schedule. The primary endpoint was overall complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue regimen during 5 days of HEC. Secondary endpoints were overall complete protection (CP; CR+nausea score < 25 mm) and total control (TC; CR+nausea score < 5 mm). Quality of life was assessed by Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire on D0 and D6.
RESULTS
A total of 279 patients receiving RAD (n=137) or PAD (n=142) were evaluated. Overall CR rates in RAD and PAD recipients were 81.8% and 79.6% (risk difference [RD], 2.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.1 to 11.4), respectively. Overall CP and TC rates for RAD and PAD were 56.2% and 58.5% (RD, -2.3%; 95% CI, -13.9 to 9.4) and 47.5% vs. 43.7% (RD, 3.8%; 95% CI, -7.9 to 15.5), respectively. FLIE total score ≥ 108 (no impact on daily life) was comparable between RAD and PAD (73.9% vs. 73.4%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
In all aspects of efficacy, safety and QOL, RAD is non-inferior to PAD for the control of CINV in cancer patients receiving HEC.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Benzimidazoles; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Surveys and Questionnaires; Vomiting; Young Adult
PubMed: 32192275
DOI: 10.4143/crt.2019.713 -
The Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences Jul 2017Albumin-bound paclitaxel (Abraxane®, nab-paclitaxel) is not recommended to be administered concurrently or sequentially with other drugs due to concern for instability....
Albumin-bound paclitaxel (Abraxane®, nab-paclitaxel) is not recommended to be administered concurrently or sequentially with other drugs due to concern for instability. The need to administer drugs separately increases infusion time. We evaluated the compatibility and stability of solutions containing nab-paclitaxel and other drugs, including gemcitabine hydrochloride, carboplatin, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, granisetron hydrochloride, and palonosetron hydrochloride. We visually examined changes in appearance, pH, and concentration of the mixed solutions of nab-paclitaxel and other drugs for up to 24 h. Concentration was measured using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The appearance and pH of the mixed solutions did not change for up to 24 h. The change in concentration up to 24 h was within 2%. The chromatogram did not change until 8 h. The results showed that the physical compatibility and chemical stability of nab-paclitaxel were not influenced when it was combined with other drugs until 8 h. This study suggests that nab-paclitaxel could be administered in a mixture or sequentially with other drugs to reduce administration time.
Topics: Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid; Deoxycytidine; Drug Combinations; Drug Incompatibility; Drug Stability; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Paclitaxel; Risk Factors; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 29434168
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022To test the hypothesis that the single use of fosaprepitant is not inferior to the use of palonosetron as antiemetic prophylaxis in the first 48 h after surgery in...
Comparative Study Between Fosaprepitant and Palonosetron in the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Prospective, Randomized and Double-Blind Study.
To test the hypothesis that the single use of fosaprepitant is not inferior to the use of palonosetron as antiemetic prophylaxis in the first 48 h after surgery in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Eighty-eight nonsmoking women (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II) aged between 18 and 60 years who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy received 150 mg of fosaprepitant or 75 μg of palonosetron, administered intravenously after the induction of general anesthesia. In the fosaprepitant group and in the palonosetron group, 13.6 and 18.2% of the patients, respectively, vomited in the first 48 h after surgery ( = 0.560). There were no differences between groups in the total frequency and intensity of nausea, number of complete responders, need for rescue medication, time required for the first rescue medication dose or number of adverse events. The administration of a single dose of fosaprepitant after the induction of anesthesia was as effective as the administration of a single dose of palonosetron for the prophylaxis of vomiting in the first 48 h after surgery in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
PubMed: 35645797
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.915347 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... May 2017Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT) receptor... (Review)
Review
Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT) receptor antagonists (RAs) has reduced the risk of vomiting, but (except for palonosetron) their effect on nausea, especially delayed nausea, is limited. This article reviews the role of NKRAs when combined with 5-HTRA-dexamethasone in CIN prophylaxis. Aprepitant has not shown consistent superiority over a two-drug (ondansetron-dexamethasone) combination in nausea control after cisplatin- or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Recently, dexamethasone and dexamethasone-metoclopramide were demonstrated to be non-inferior to aprepitant and aprepitant-dexamethasone, respectively, for the control of delayed nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin), and are now recognized in the guidelines. The potential impact of the new NKRAs rolapitant and netupitant (oral fixed combination with palonosetron, as NEPA) in CIN prophylaxis is discussed. While the clinical significance of the effect on nausea of the rolapitant-granisetron-dexamethasone combination after cisplatin is not conclusive, rolapitant addition showed no improvement in nausea prophylaxis after AC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). NEPA was superior to palonosetron in the control of nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin). Moreover, the efficacy of NEPA in nausea control was maintained over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC. Recently, NKRAs have been challenged by olanzapine, with olanzapine showing superior efficacy in nausea prevention after HEC. Fixed antiemetic combinations (such as NEPA) or new antiemetics with a long half-life that may be given once per chemotherapy cycle (rolapitant or NEPA) may improve patient compliance with antiemetic treatment.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Quality of Life; Vomiting
PubMed: 28108820
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-017-3585-z -
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2020Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
[Comparison of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in middle ear surgery: a randomized clinical trial].
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60–80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery.
METHODS
Sixty-four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded.
RESULTS
Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2–6 hours only ( = 0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0–24 hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P ( = 0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron–dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number-needed-to-treat was 4. The patient’s satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O ( = 0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients ( = 0.026).
CONCLUSION
The combination of palonosetron-dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron-dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ear, Middle; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Patient Satisfaction; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Prospective Studies; Young Adult
PubMed: 32988625
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjan.2020.04.016 -
Computational and Mathematical Methods... 2022Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a typical and unpleasant physical symptom that occurs in patients after surgery, and it may be one of the most challenging... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a typical and unpleasant physical symptom that occurs in patients after surgery, and it may be one of the most challenging elements of the recovery process. PONV can be caused by a variety of factors, including surgery itself, anesthesia, or medications. Palonosetron is a medication that is now licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of this ailment. The efficacy of palonosetron in reducing physical symptoms in patients following surgery was investigated in this meta-analysis and comprehensive review.
METHODS
Following a quick search of databases such as CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, the Science quotation index's Web site, the United States clinical trial check-in, the United Kingdom clinical trial check-in, the New Zealand clinical trial check-in, and the Australia check-in, as well as outlines of major anesthesia meetings held in the previous five years, we were able to get a good start on our research. Growing adults who had surgery and were given other drugs were compared to individuals who did get palonosetron in randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS
A total of 8324 participants were recruited in 10 different clinical studies. It has been shown that palonosetron may significantly reduce the 24-hour PONV incidence and 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.86. When comparing the 6-hour and 48-hour time periods, the incidences of experiencing PONV were neither statistically different (RR: 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.61-1.09) or considerably different (RR: 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-1.10). Following in a similar vein, there was no significant difference between the groups in the occurrence of PONV after 48 hours (RR: 0.82, 95 percent CI: 0.59-1.14). The most often reported side effects of the medicine were headaches and dizziness, which were the most common. Regardless of the drug used, the difference in adverse reactions was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
When it comes to the prevention of early PONV, it has been shown that palonosetron is more effective than other medications. Palonosetron, on the other hand, has been demonstrated to be more effective than other medications in preventing vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia; Antiemetics; Humans; Laparoscopy; Palonosetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 35387223
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7474053 -
American Health & Drug Benefits May 2014Individual studies have assessed the impact of standard prophylactic therapy with 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Individual studies have assessed the impact of standard prophylactic therapy with 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on cost and utilization, but no synthesis of the findings exists.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review published literature on costs and utilization associated with CINV prophylaxis with palonosetron and other 5-HT3RAs.
METHODS
PubMed and the National Institute for Health Research Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, conferences of 4 organizations (ie, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, American Society of Clinical Oncology, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, and Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer), and the bibliographies of relevant articles were queried for the medical subject headings and key terms of "ondansetron," "granisetron," "palonosetron," "dolasetron mesylate," "costs," "cost analysis," and "economics." We included records published (full-length articles after 1997 and conference presentations after 2010) in English and with human patients, reporting data on cost and utilization (rescue medication, outpatient and inpatient services) associated with the use of 5-HT3RAs for the treatment or prevention of CINV.
RESULTS
Of the 434 identified studies, 32 are included in the current analysis: 7 studies report costs, 18 report utilization, and 7 studies report both. The costs are reported in US dollars (7 studies), in Euros (5 studies), and in Canadian dollars (2 studies). The studies vary in designs, patients, 5-HT3RA regimens, and the definition of outcomes. The US studies report higher drug costs for CINV prophylaxis with palonosetron compared with ondansetron, lower medical outpatient and inpatient costs for palonosetron versus other 5-HT3RAs, and higher acquisition costs for palonosetron versus ondansetron or other 5-HT3RAs. Fewer patients receiving palonosetron versus with ondansetron or other 5-HT3RAs required rescue medication or used outpatient or inpatient care. In Europe and in Canada, the total pharmacy costs and use of rescue medications reported are lower for patients receiving prophylaxis with palonosetron.
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis shows that prophylaxis with palonosetron for the treatment of CINV is associated with higher acquisition treatment costs, but also with lower use of rescue medications and outpatient and inpatient services compared with ondansetron or other 5-HT3RAs in the United States. Therefore, the use of palonosetron as a standard treatment may lead to reduced service utilization for CINV.
PubMed: 24991400
DOI: No ID Found