-
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 -
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 -
Drugs in Context 2017The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, an oral fixed combination netupitant (NETU, 300 mg) and palonosetron (PA, 0.5 mg) compared with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, an oral fixed combination netupitant (NETU, 300 mg) and palonosetron (PA, 0.5 mg) compared with aprepitant and palonosetron (APPA) or palonosetron (PA) alone, to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing treatment with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) in the UK.
SCOPE
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were undertaken to compare NEPA with currently recommended anti-emetics. Relative effectiveness was estimated over the acute (day 1) and overall treatment (days 1-5) phases, taking complete response (CR, no emesis and no rescue medication) and complete protection (CP, CR and no more than mild nausea [VAS scale <25 mm]) as primary efficacy outcomes. A three-health-state Markov cohort model, including CP, CR and incomplete response (no CR) for HEC and MEC, was constructed. A five-day time horizon and UK NHS perspective were adopted. Transition probabilities were obtained by combining the response rates of CR and CP from NEPA trials and odds ratios from the meta-analysis. Utilities of 0.90, 0.70 and 0.24 were defined for CP, CR and incomplete response, respectively. Costs included medications and management of CINV-related events and were obtained from the British National Formulary and NHS Reference Costs. The expected budgetary impact of NEPA was also evaluated.
FINDINGS
In HEC patients, the NEPA strategy was more effective than APPA (quality-adjusted life days [QALDs] of 4.263 versus 4.053; incremental emesis-free and CINV-free days of +0.354 and +0.237, respectively) and was less costly (£80 versus £124), resulting in NEPA being the dominant strategy. In MEC patients, NEPA was cost effective, cumulating in an estimated 0.182 extra QALDs at an incremental cost of £6.65 compared with PA.
CONCLUSION
Despite study limitations (study setting, time horizon, utility measure), the results suggest NEPA is cost effective for preventing CINV associated with HEC and MEC in the UK.
PubMed: 28392826
DOI: 10.7573/dic.212298 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Jul 2014
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting
PubMed: 24942276
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu190 -
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk... 2016The purpose of this review is to summarize and discuss the recently published data (both original studies and reviews) on the oral medication NEPA, consisting of... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this review is to summarize and discuss the recently published data (both original studies and reviews) on the oral medication NEPA, consisting of netupitant (a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1RA], 300 mg dose) and palonosetron (5-hydroxytryptamine [serotonin or 5HT] type 3 receptor antagonist [5HT3RA], 0.5 mg dose), in the prevention of the acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.
METHODS
This review was based on the very limited number of available published trials consisting of two Phase III studies and one Phase II dose-selecting trial.
RESULTS
These studies demonstrated some therapeutic benefits of NEPA over related chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis management, as well as its beneficial safety profile. In particular, compared with single-dose 0.5 mg palonosetron, the complete response rates for all phases of CINV for the first cycle of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (with cisplatin), as well as anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, were significantly higher for single-dose NEPA. The high efficacy of NEPA in terms of prevention of CINV continued throughout repeated cycles of highly and moderately emetogenic therapies.
CONCLUSION
It is currently recommended that patients who are administered highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens should obtain a three-drug combination consisting of NK1RA, 5HT3RA, and dexamethasone. The recently available oral combination of NEPA plus dexamethasone provides an additional pharmacological management option that could be considered in this scenario.
PubMed: 27194913
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S81126 -
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 -
Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin 2021Patients who undergo multiple-day chemotherapy sessions experience hard-to-treat nausea and vomiting. Currently, there is no effective standard treatment for this...
Patients who undergo multiple-day chemotherapy sessions experience hard-to-treat nausea and vomiting. Currently, there is no effective standard treatment for this condition. This study compared the preventive effect of first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT RAs) and second-generation 5-HT RAs palonosetron in multiple-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The design of this study was a retrospective case-control study of patients who received a five-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy and were treated with aprepitant, dexamethasone, granisetron, and ramosetron or palonosetron. The patients were divided into two groups: patients given granisetron and ramosetron (the first-generation group), and those given palonosetron (palonosetron group). The percentage of patients with a complete response or total control was assessed. They were divided into three phases: 0-216 h (overall phase), 0-120 h (remedial phase), and 120-216 h (after phase). The remedial phase was further divided into 0-24 h (early phase) and 24-120 h (later phase). Moreover, the nutritional status of each patient was assessed by noting the patients' total calorie-intake per day and total parenteral nutrition. First-generation 5-HT RAs and palonosetron were used for treatment in 18 and 28 patients, respectively. The complete response rate and caloric oral intake of the later phase were higher in the palonosetron group than in the first-generation group. We conclude that palonosetron treatment was more effective than first-generation 5-HT RAs in controlling multiple-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzimidazoles; Bleomycin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Etoposide; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal; Ovarian Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Platinum Compounds; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Testicular Neoplasms; Vomiting
PubMed: 33790099
DOI: 10.1248/bpb.b20-00609 -
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 -
Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Jan 2020We compared the effects of palonosetron with ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during the first 24 h after surgery in women receiving...
BACKGROUND
We compared the effects of palonosetron with ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during the first 24 h after surgery in women receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) with fentanyl for pain control.
METHODS
In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, 204 healthy patients who were undergoing elective surgery with general anesthesia were enrolled. In the palonosetron group (n = 102), 0.075 mg bolus was given intravenously (i.v.) 30 min before the end of surgery and 8 ml saline was added to the IV-PCA. In the ondansetron group (n = 102), 8 mg bolus i.v. was given 30 min before the end of surgery and 16 mg of ondansetron was added to the IV-PCA. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, and use of rescue anti-emetics were evaluated 6 and 24 h after the operation.
RESULTS
The incidences of nausea (55.6%) and vomiting (14.1%) in the palonosetron group did not differ from those (58.3 and 19.8%) in the ondansetron group during the first 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the severity of nausea and use of rescue anti-emetics between the two groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The effects of palonosetron in preventing PONV were not different from those of ondansetron during the first 24 h postoperatively in women receiving IV-PCA with fentanyl.
PubMed: 33329786
DOI: 10.17085/apm.2020.15.1.28 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... 2014Nausea and vomiting are common adverse events in chemotherapy. In spite of the serious effects on the quality of life and further treatment, they remain overlooked by... (Review)
Review
Nausea and vomiting are common adverse events in chemotherapy. In spite of the serious effects on the quality of life and further treatment, they remain overlooked by physicians, and no standard treatment has been developed. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists and palonosetron are the major agents in the standard regimen for treating moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, NK-1 receptor antagonists first became commercially available at the end of 2013 and palonosetron has not been extensively applied in China. Olanzapine was recommended as a therapy for moderate and severe CINV in antiemesis-clinical practice guidelines in oncology in 2014 for the first time. It is an atypical antipsychotic agent, which can block multiple receptors on neurotransmitters. During more than 10 years, olanzapine has demonstrated significant effects in preventing CINV and treating breakthrough and refractor CINV, which was observed in case reports, precise retrospective studies, and phase I, II and III clinical trials, with no grade 3 to 4 adverse events. In particular, it is superior to aprepitant and dexamethasone in delayed nausea and vomiting. Therefore, this compound is worthy of further investigation.
Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Benzodiazepines; Dexamethasone; Emetics; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting
PubMed: 25520071
DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.22.9587