-
Experimental Hematology Apr 2007Management of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) includes both prevention and therapy. Primary prevention involves implementation of measures to modify risk... (Review)
Review
Management of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) includes both prevention and therapy. Primary prevention involves implementation of measures to modify risk factors. Secondary prevention involves prophylaxis and treatment with 5HT(3) receptor antagonists (5HT(3)RAs) with or without corticosteroids, dopamine antagonists, antihistamines, or anticholinergics. 5HT(3)RAs are also useful in treatment of RINV with significantly better outcomes, compared to other antiemetics or placebo. Agents include ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron, palonosetron, and tropisitron. These agents may be useful in both the radiotherapy patient and the individual who has been accidentally exposed to ionizing radiation.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Nausea; Radiation Injuries; Radioactive Hazard Release; Radiotherapy; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting
PubMed: 17379085
DOI: 10.1016/j.exphem.2007.01.010 -
EClinicalMedicine Jul 2022Despite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by using dexamethasone combined with palonosetron for patients who...
Aprepitant plus palonosetron versus dexamethasone plus palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy: A randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Despite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by using dexamethasone combined with palonosetron for patients who received moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), some of these patients still suffer from CINV. We evaluated whether aprepitant combined with palonosetron can improve the efficacy in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving MEC.
METHODS
This was a single-centre, open-label, phase III, randomized controlled trial, which was done at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University of China. The registered patients planned to receive mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) but had not received any chemotherapy previously. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the aprepitant group (aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1, 80 mg on day 2-3) and the dexamethasone group (dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously on day 1, 5 mg on days 2 and 3), both groups with palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously on day 1. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), defined as the absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the overall phase (0-120 h). The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded all patients who used estazolam within 24 h before registration and those who refused to keep a diary documenting the severity of nausea, frequency of vomiting, and the use of rescue therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02909478.
FINDINGS
Between Sep 1, 2017, and Oct 23, 2019, 320 patients were enrolled, and 315 patients were evaluated. The proportion of patients who achieved CR was significantly higher with aprepitant than that noted with dexamethasone in the overall phase (88.8% vs. 74.2%; = 0.0010; rate difference, RD 15%, 95% CI, 6% to 23%) and in the delayed phase (25-120 h), 90.6% vs. 75.5%, ( < 0.0001; RD 15%, 95%CI, 7% to 23%). No significant difference of CR rate was observed in the acute phase (0-24 h), 93.8% vs. 93.5%, ( = 0.94; RD 0%, 95% CI, -5% to 6%)). In the overall phase, the incidence of insomnia ( < 0.0010), dyspepsia ( = 0.038), and flushing ( = 0.0010) reported by the patients was significantly higher in the dexamethasone group than that in the aprepitant group.
INTERPRETATION
Aprepitant combined with palonosetron is superior to dexamethasone combined with palonosetron in patients who received the MEC regimen mFOLFOX6 in terms of preventing CINV.
FUNDING
The National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFC1316000) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81974369).
PubMed: 35747189
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101480 -
Oncology (Williston Park, N.Y.) Jul 2007
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anorexia; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Asthenia; Constipation; Diarrhea; Drug Interactions; Dyspepsia; Fatigue; Fever; Granisetron; Headache; Hiccup; Humans; Indoles; Injections, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinolizines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting
PubMed: 17844897
DOI: No ID Found -
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 -
Medicine Aug 2021Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an undesirable complication in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Combination therapy via different mechanisms of action...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an undesirable complication in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Combination therapy via different mechanisms of action for antiemetic prophylaxis has been warranted for effective treatment of PONV. This study was designed to compare the prophylactic antiemetic effect between midazolam combined with palonosetron (group MP) and palonosetron alone (group P) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries.
METHODS
A prospective randomized controlled trial was investigated in non-smoking female. Eighty-eight patients were randomly divided into 2 groups with 44 patients each. Group MP received 0.05 mg/kg of midazolam intravenously before induction of anesthesia whereas group P received the same volume of normal saline. Immediately after anesthetic induction, 0.075 mg of palonosetron was administered to both the groups. The incidence and severity of PONV were assessed during 2 time intervals (0-2 hours, 2-24 hours), postoperatively.
RESULTS
The incidence of PONV during 24 hours after surgery was lower in group MP as compared to group P. There was also a significant difference in the use of rescue antiemetics. The severity of nausea was significantly lower in group MP as compared to group P, in the initial 2 hours after surgery. The incidence of side effects was similar between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION
In the prevention of PONV, midazolam combined with palonosetron, administered during induction of anesthesia was more effective as compared to palonosetron alone.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Adult; Antiemetics; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Female; Humans; Male; Midazolam; Middle Aged; Palonosetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Prospective Studies; Republic of Korea
PubMed: 34414984
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026997 -
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 -
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 -
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk... 2015Nausea and vomiting are major adverse effects of chemotherapy and can greatly impact patients' quality of life. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Nausea and vomiting are major adverse effects of chemotherapy and can greatly impact patients' quality of life. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevalence is high, treatment remains difficult. Palonosetron is a 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) approved for treatment of CINV. The purpose of this review is to discuss existing and emerging therapeutic options, and examine studies focusing on palonosetron with regards to efficacy, pharmacology, tolerability, safety, and patient-derived outcomes.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify relevant studies using palonosetron alone or in combination with other antiemetics. Studies were extracted if they included complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no nausea, no vomiting, and no rescue medications as an endpoint. Studies were also included if safety endpoints were examined.
RESULTS
Palonosetron alone has been shown to improve CR and CC rates for patients receiving low, moderate, or high emetogenic chemotherapy. Rates were further improved with the addition of dexamethasone, a corticosteroid. Furthermore, the addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, such as netupitant markedly improved efficacy profiles compared to palonosetron alone. Aprepitant is an antiemetic that has exhibited positive results in combination with palonosetron. Recently, a new drug consisting of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) has demonstrated significantly more efficacious prevention of CINV. Regardless of the combination, palonosetron has been well tolerated. The most common adverse events were constipation, headache, fatigue, and dizziness, with the majority of patients describing them as only mild or moderate.
CONCLUSION
Palonosetron, alone or with other antiemetics, has improved CINV treatment due to its ability to significantly reduce delayed phases of CINV, compared to similar 5-HT3RAs. Palonosetron is both more effective than first generation 5-HT3RAs and safer, as it results in a smaller prolongation of the QTc interval, compared to other 5-HT3RAs.
PubMed: 25999723
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S68130 -
Anesthesia, Essays and Researches 2018Intrathecal morphine is commonly used for postcesarean analgesia. Its use is frequently associated with opioid-induced nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. Palonosetron...
Comparison of Palonosetron, Dexamethasone, and Palonosetron Plus Dexamethasone as Prophylactic Antiemetic and Antipruritic Drug in Patients Receiving Intrathecal Morphine for Lower Segment Cesarean Section.
BACKGROUND
Intrathecal morphine is commonly used for postcesarean analgesia. Its use is frequently associated with opioid-induced nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. Palonosetron (0.075 mg) combined with dexamethasone (8 mg) is postulated to have an additive effect over each drug alone. The study, therefore, compared the effect of intravenous (i.v.) palonosetron, dexamethasone, and palonosetron with dexamethasone combination in preventing intrathecal morphine-induced postoperative vomiting and pruritus in lower segment cesarean section (LSCS) patients.
SETTINGS AND DESIGN
Randomized, prospective, double-blinded, observational clinical study.
METHODS
Ninety pregnant women, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I undergoing LSCS were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to three groups - Group received 0.075 mg palonosetron i.v., Group D received dexamethasone 8 mg i.v., and Group PD received palonosetron 0.075 mg along with dexamethasone 4 mg i.v., just after spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine 2.2 ml (12 mg) and 150 μg morphine. The incidence of pruritus, nausea, vomiting, and need for rescue drug were recorded for 24 h.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Statistical analysis was performed using Student's -test for categorical variables and Chi-square test for noncategorical variables.
RESULTS
The incidence of nausea, vomiting was significantly more in Group D (40%) than Group (27%) and Group PD (20%) in 24 h. The incidence of pruritus was significantly more in Group D (6%) than Group and PD (3%). The need of rescue antiemetic was more in Group D (30%) than Group (6%) and Group PD (3%). No difference in three groups requiring rescue antipruritic drug.
CONCLUSION
Prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced vomiting and pruritus was more effective with palonosetron alone or with dexamethasone combination than dexamethasone alone. Combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone proved no better than palonosetron alone.
PubMed: 29962591
DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_183_17 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Apr 2018Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a common side effect of chemotherapy, can substantially impair a patient's quality of life, interfere with a patient's... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Efficacy of the combination neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, palonosetron, and dexamethasone compared to others for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a common side effect of chemotherapy, can substantially impair a patient's quality of life, interfere with a patient's compliance with anticancer therapy, and result in the manifestation of adverse events such as electrolyte imbalance, dehydration and malnutrition. The most recent guidelines published by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommend the combination of dexamethasone (DEX), a 5-hydroxytrypatmine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), preferably palonosetron (PALO), and a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) for prophylactic treatment of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The aim of this review was to examine the efficacy of triple agent, as reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), compared to any other prophylactic treatments.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase Classic & Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (CR) in the acute, delayed and overall phase. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients who achieved complete control (CC), no nausea and no vomiting in the acute, delayed and overall phases.
RESULTS
A total of 17 RCTs were included in this review, of which 3,146 patients were randomized to receive NK1RA, PALO and DEX, and 2,987 patients to receive other antiemetic treatments. The combination was not superior to other treatments in five endpoints-CC and CR in the acute phase, nausea and emesis control in the delayed phase, and nausea in the overall phase-but was superior in the other 11 endpoints. When looking only at HEC and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) studies, the combination was only superior to others in three endpoints (delayed and overall CC, and overall emesis control) in HEC setting, which is less than the nine identified endpoints (delayed and overall CR, delayed and overall CC, acute and overall nausea control, and acute, delayed and overall phases for emesis control) in the MEC setting.
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of NK1RA, PALO and DEX is superior in the majority of assessed endpoints of this meta-analysis. Further studies should investigate the efficacy and safety of the triple regimen compared to regimens lacking NK1RA, to add to the discussions about whether future CINV prophylaxis guidelines should include NK1RA as a first-line treatment in the MEC setting.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Radiotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting
PubMed: 29764184
DOI: 10.21037/apm.2018.03.09