palonosetron and Drug-Related-Side-Effects-and-Adverse-Reactions

The combination of netupitant and palonosetron was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2014 for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Netupitant and palonosetron is available as a single capsule to be administered prior to each cycle of chemotherapy. The approval was based on phase II and III data in patients undergoing treatment with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Netupitant and palonosetron's benefits include a convenient dosage form, dual-targeted mechanism, and favorable side effect profile, while its main limitations are cost and potential logistical issues surrounding administration. More studies are needed to adequately determine its role in therapy as well as which patients will derive the most benefit from its use.

Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

We recently demonstrated the non-inferiority of two dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens with an oral fixed-combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) versus the guideline-recommended DEX use for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Since prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of the DEX-sparing regimens in this subset.. Chemo-naive patients aged >65 years treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m. Among the 228 patients in the parent study, 107 were > 65 years. Similar CR rates [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were observed in patients over 65 years across treatment groups [DEX1: 75% (59.7-86.8%); DEX3: 80.6% (62.5-92.6%); DEX4: 75% (56.6-88.5%)] as well as versus the total study population. NSN rates were also similar in the older-patients across treatment groups (p = 0.480) but were higher compared with the total population. Similar rates of NIDL (95% CI) were reported in the older-patient subset across treatment groups [DEX1: 61.5% (44.6-76.6%); DEX3: 64.3% (44.1-81.4%); DEX4: 62.1% (42.3-79.3%); p = 1.0] during the overall phase, as well as versus total population. A similar proportion of older patients across treatment groups experienced DEX-related side effects.. This analysis shows that older-patients who are fit for cisplatin benefit from a simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX with neither loss in antiemetic efficacy nor the adverse impact on patient daily functioning. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04201769) on 17/12/2019 (retrospectively registered).

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Nausea; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies

To explore efficacy of short-course olanzapine with or without low-dose dexamethasone for prevention of delayed emesis in gynecologic cancer patients receiving carboplatin/paclitaxel.. This was a prospective study in 81 chemo-naive patients receiving 0.25 mg intravenous palonosetron, 16 mg dexamethasone, and 10 mg oral olanzapine before chemotherapy. On days 2 and 3, patients randomly received 10 mg olanzapine (arm A; n=27), 10 mg olanzapine plus 4 mg dexamethasone (arm B; n=27), or 8 mg dexamethasone (reference arm C; n=27). The primary endpoint was total control (TC; no vomiting, no rescue antiemetics, and no nausea) on days 2-5, using a diary. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients with no emesis impact on daily life using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire, and patient's satisfaction with antiemetic coverage.. Fifty-two percent of patients in arm A (. In this exploratory study with a small sample size, we did not find any clue about better control of delayed emesis with either olanzapine regimen in gynecologic cancer patients treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel and receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Carboplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Italy; Middle Aged; Nausea; Olanzapine; Paclitaxel; Palonosetron; Surveys and Questionnaires; Vomiting

To assess the efficacy of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron 300/0.50 mg) over multiple chemotherapy cycles.. Two randomized phase III studies evaluated a single dose of oral NEPA given on day 1 in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based (Study 1) or highly (HEC)/moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy (safety Study 2). Oral NEPA was compared with oral palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 1) or oral aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2-3/palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 2; no formal statistical comparisons). Oral dexamethasone was administered in all treatment groups. Complete response (CR; no emesis/no rescue medication), no emesis, and no significant nausea (NSN) rates during acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases of chemotherapy cycles 1-4 in each study were evaluated.. In Study 1, 1450 patients received 5969 chemotherapy cycles; in Study 2, 412 patients received 1961 chemotherapy cycles. In each study, ≥75% of patients completed 4 or more cycles. In Study 1, oral NEPA was superior to palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the acute and delayed phases of cycle 1, with higher rates of CR (all P < 0.05), no emesis (all P < 0.05), and NSN (delayed phase P < 0.05 cycles 1, 2, and 4) reported across 4 cycles. In Study 2, oral NEPA had numerically higher CR and NSN rates in the acute and delayed phases than aprepitant-palonosetron in MEC/HEC patients.. Oral NEPA was highly effective in preventing both acute and delayed CINV over multiple chemotherapy cycles of HEC, AC, and MEC regimens.. Study 1, NCT01339260; Study 2, NCT01376297.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome

This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer receiving full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.. Patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who received full dose single-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized (1:1) to aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone, or placebo plus palonosetron and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was complete response of nausea and vomiting in the first cycle. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with nausea and vomiting who received rescue antiemetic medication, the response of cross-over patients, and safety.. A total of 244 patients were randomized. There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding personal characteristics. The administration of aprepitant significantly improved the complete response for vomiting in the overall period (92.6% vs. 79.93%; P < .01), but not a nausea-free response (75.4% vs. 71.3%; P > .05) in the first cycle. The percentage of patients who received rescue antiemetic medication was decreased for the aprepitant group (14.8% vs. 37.1%; P < .001). Patients who did not use aprepitant and suffered with nausea and vomiting in cycle 1 were crossed over to the aprepitant group (N = 32), and the rate of nausea and vomiting in cycle 2 was decreased to 37.5% (P < .05) and 25% (P < .05), respectively. There were no drug-related adverse effects.. Aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone proved to be effective and well-tolerated in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Palonosetron; Vomiting

The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine, palonosetron and ondansetron infusion (standard of care) for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).. It was a randomized open-label prospective study. Sixty-two patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 32-mg infusion over 24 h, or olanzapine wafer 10 mg once daily in addition to ondansetron 8 mg IV three times a day or a single dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg IV instead of ondansetron. All groups were allowed rescue antiemetics. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of no emesis, no use of rescue medication, and nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. The secondary endpoint was nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. Both endpoints were measured at 24 and 48 h after initiation of the study treatment. Statistical analysis was conducted using a double-sided Fisher's exact test.. The primary endpoint was achieved in 6, 45, and 18 %, and 6, 64, and 18 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetron patient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. The secondary outcome was observed in 17, 60, and 62 %, and 35, 71, and 43 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetron patient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. Serious adverse drug reactions were not reported in any arms. Time to engraftment was not significantly different between the arms.. Olanzapine was an effective treatment of breakthrough CINV. A single dose of palonosetron significantly reduced nausea up to 24 h.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzodiazepines; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Olanzapine; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Transplantation Conditioning; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Young Adult

Palonosetron has shown efficacy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in paediatric patients.. In this multicentre, multinational, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 study, paediatric patients aged between 0 and younger than 17 years, who were naive or non-naive to chemotherapy, and scheduled to undergo moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy for the treatment of malignant disease were randomised centrally (1:1:1) to receive up to four cycles of 10 μg/kg or 20 μg/kg palonosetron on day 1, or three 150 μg/kg doses of ondansetron on day 1, scheduled 4 h apart, according to a static central permuted block randomisation scheme by an interactive web response system. Randomisation was stratified according to age and emetogenicity. Treatment allocation was masked to project team members involved in data collection and analysis, and members of the investigator's team. The primary endpoint was complete response (no vomiting, retching, or use of rescue drugs) during the acute phase (0-24 h post-chemotherapy) of the first on-study chemotherapy cycle, as assessed in the population of randomly assigned patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and an active study drug. The primary efficacy objective was to show the non-inferiority of palonosetron versus ondansetron during the acute phase (0-24 h post-chemotherapy) of the first on-study chemotherapy cycle through comparison of the difference in the proportions of patients who achieved a complete response with palonosetron (πT) minus ondansetron (πR) versus a preset non-inferiority margin (δ -15%). To be considered as non-inferior to ondansetron, for at least one of the doses of palonosetron, the lower limit of the 97·5% CI for the weighted sum of the differences in complete response rates had to be superior to -15%. Safety was assessed, according to treatment received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01442376, and has been completed.. Between Sept 12, 2011, and Oct 26, 2012, we randomly assigned 502 patients; 169 were assigned to receive 10 μg/kg palonosetron, 169 to receive 20 μg/kg palonosetron, and 164 to receive 3 × 150 μg/kg ondansetron, of whom 166, 165, and 162, respectively, were included in the efficacy analysis. In the acute phase, complete responses were recorded in 90 (54%) patients in the 10 μg/kg palonosetron group, 98 (59%) in the 20 μg/kg palonosetron group, and 95 (59%) in the ondansetron group. Non-inferiority versus ondansetron was shown for 20 μg/kg palonosetron in the acute phase (weighted sum of the differences in complete response rates 0·36% [97·5% CI -11·7 to 12·4]; p=0·0022). Non-inferiority versus ondansetron was not shown for 10 μg/kg palonosetron in the acute phase (weighted sum of the differences in complete response rates -4·41% [97·5% CI -16·4 to 7·6]). In the first on-study treatment cycle, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 134 (80%) of 167 patients who received 10 μg/kg palonosetron, 113 (69%) of 163 who received 20 μg/kg palonosetron, and 134 (82%) of 164 who received ondansetron. The most common drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events were nervous system disorders, mainly headache, which occurred in three (2%) patients who received 10 μg/kg palonosetron, one (<1%) patient who received 20 μg/kg palonosetron, and two (1%) patients who received ondansetron. The incidence of serious adverse events in the first on-study treatment cycle was lower in the 20 μg/kg palonosetron group (43 [26%]) than in the 10 μg/kg palonosetron group (52 [31%]) and the ondansetron group (55 [34%]).. Non-inferiority was shown for 20 μg/kg palonosetron during the acute phase of the first on-study chemotherapy cycle. 20 μg/kg palonosetron is now indicated by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in paediatric patients aged 1 month to younger than 17 years.. Helsinn Healthcare.

Topics: Adolescent; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Confidence Intervals; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Infant; Internationality; Isoquinolines; Male; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The role of the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists in the prevention of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting has not been established. The purpose of the GAND-emesis study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of fosaprepitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone in the prevention of nausea and vomiting during 5 weeks of fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin in patients with cervical cancer.. This investigator initiated, multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, included women with cervical cancer scheduled to receive fractionated radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) for 5 weeks. Patients had to be naive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either single doses of fosaprepitant 150 mg intravenously or placebo (saline) in combination with palonosetron 0·25 mg intravenously and dexamethasone 16 mg orally before cisplatin administration. Randomisation was done by the unmasked pharmacist, who used a list of six numbers (a block) provided in a sealed envelope. A web-based randomisation number generator was used to generate the full list of randomisation numbers that was split up in blocks of six numbers. All patients received oral dexamethasone 8 mg twice a day on day 2, 4 mg twice a day on day 3, and 4 mg once on day 4. The treatment was repeated for 5 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with sustained no emesis after 5 weeks of treatment. The modified intention-to-treat population (all patients who received study medication) was used for the statistical analyses. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01074697.. Between June 15, 2010, and March 8, 2015, 246 patients from four countries consented to the study and were randomly assigned. Of these, 234 patients were eligible, having received study medication (118 received fosaprepitant, 116 received placebo). The proportion of patients with sustained no emesis at 5 weeks (competing risk analysis) was 48·7% (95% CI 25·2-72·2) for the placebo group compared with 65·7% (42·2-89·2) of patients for the fosaprepitant group. There was a significantly lower cumulative risk of emesis in the fosaprepitant group compared with the placebo group (subhazard ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·39-0·87]; p=0·008). Treatments were generally well tolerated with few grade 3 adverse events none of which were related to the study treatment; the most common grade 3 adverse event during the 5 weeks of treatment was diarrhoea (11 [9%] of 118 patients in the fosaprepitant group vs six [5%] of 116 patients in the placebo group). There was only one report of a grade 4 adverse event (neutropenia), in the fosaprepitant group. No deaths were recorded in either group.. To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate safety and efficacy of a NK-1 receptor antagonist during 5 weeks of radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin. Patients receiving fosaprepitant in addition to palonosetron and dexamethasone were less likely to experience emesis and nausea compared with those receiving palonosetron and dexamethasone alone. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Further investigations in other radiotherapy settings are warranted.. Private and hospital or university funding, unrestricted grants from Biovitrum and Helsinn Healthcare SA.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Chemoradiotherapy; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vomiting

There has been no phase III study of comparing the efficacy of first- and second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the triplet regimen with dexamethasone and aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).. Patients with a malignant solid tumor who would receive HEC containing 50 mg/m(2) or more cisplatin were randomly assigned to either palonosetron (0.75 mg) arm (Arm P) or granisetron (1 mg) arm (Arm G), on day 1, both arms with dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1 and 8 mg on days 2-4) and aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-3). The primary end point was complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching and no rescue medication) at the 0-120 h period and secondary end points included complete control (CC; no vomiting/retching, no rescue medication, and no more than mild nausea) and total control (TC; no vomiting/retching, no rescue medication, and no nausea).. Between July 2011 and June 2012, 842 patients were enrolled. Of 827 evaluable, 272 of 414 patients (65.7%) in Arm P had a CR at the 0-120 h period when compared with 244 of 413 (59.1%) in Arm G (P = 0.0539). Both arms had the same CR rate of 91.8% at the acute (0-24 h) period, while at the delayed (24-120 h) period, Arm P had a significantly higher CR rate than Arm G (67.2% versus 59.1%; P = 0.0142). In secondary end points, Arm P had significantly higher rates than Arm G at the 0-120 h period (CC rate: 63.8% versus 55.9%, P = 0.0234; TC rate: 47.6% versus 40.7%, P = 0.0369) and delayed periods (CC rate: 65.2% versus 55.9%, P = 0.0053; TC rate: 48.6% versus 41.4%, P = 0.0369).. The present study did not show the superiority of palonosetron when compared with granisetron in the triplet regimen regarding the primary end point.. UMIN000004863.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Double-Blind Method; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Efficacy of intermittent palonosetron dosing in patients undergoing multiple-day, high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) was investigated.. Fifty-eight patients received palonosetron (0.25 mg intravenous [iv.]) every other day plus daily dexamethasone (8 mg iv. twice daily) dosing. The primary end point was complete control (CC; no emesis, no rescue anti-emetics, and no more than mild nausea) in the overall acute-period (until 24 h after chemotherapy completion).. Acute-period CC occurred in 81% and 50% of patients receiving palonosetron and ondansetron (historical control cohort), respectively. Palonosetron (odds ratio [OR]: 4.37; p = 0.001) and a longer duration of HDC regimen (OR: 3.47; p = 0.011) independently predicted a better anti-emetic outcome.. Palonosetron every other day plus daily dexamethasone is an effective anti-emetic coverage in patients undergoing HDC.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

A phase III trial assessed the efficacy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone given once in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens.. This multicentre, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial evaluated two different treatment groups. One group received palonosetron (0.25 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (8 mg intravenously) before chemotherapy, while the other was administered the same regimen on day 1 followed by dexamethasone 8 mg orally on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5 after chemotherapy initiation). The non-inferiority margin was predefined as a 15% difference between groups in the primary endpoint.. Of 332 chemotherapy-naïve patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 65.1% were female, and 35.2% received anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimens. Overall CR rates were 67.5% for those administered dexamethasone only on day 1 (n = 166), and 71.1% for those also administered dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (n = 166; difference -3.6% (95% confidence interval, -13.5 to 6.3)). CR rates were not significantly different between groups during the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy; 88.6% versus 84.3%; P = 0.262) and delayed phases (days 2-5; 68.7% versus 77.7%; P = 0.116).. Palonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone administered before common MEC regimens provide protection against acute and delayed CINV which is non-inferior to that of palonosetron plus dexamethasone for 3 days. However, the major benefit of the single-day regimen occurs in patients receiving non-AC MEC regimens.

Topics: Aged; Anthracyclines; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Chi-Square Distribution; Confidence Intervals; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Health Status Indicators; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Multivariate Analysis; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Risk Assessment; Serotonin Antagonists; Time Factors; Vomiting

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy and the efficacy of a second dose of palonosetron in treating breakthrough emesis.. Forty-six patients treated with multiple-day chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies received palonosetron as prophylaxis for CINV on the first day of chemotherapy and dexamethasone throughout the entire period of chemotherapy. If breakthrough emesis occurred, a second dose of palonosetron was administered after 72 h following the first administration. The results were retrospectively compared to group of patients with similar clinical characteristics undergoing similar multiple-day chemotherapy. This group had received single-dose ondansetron as CINV prophylaxis on the first day of chemotherapy plus dexamethasone throughout the entire period of chemotherapy and metoclopramide for breakthrough emesis.. One hundred eighty and 173 chemotherapy cycles were administered in the palonosetron and ondansetron groups, respectively. Nausea and vomiting were absent in 80% of patients of the palonosetron group and 60% of the control group (p < 0.05). In the palonosetron group, 67% of patients who experienced CINV were successfully rescued by a second dose of palonosetron, while in the ondansetron group, only 22% showed a no CINV after metoclopramide treatment (p = 0.04).. The present results appear to be encouraging in terms of complete prophylaxis of CINV and treatment of breakthrough emesis in the setting of multiple-day chemotherapy.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Dexamethasone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Isoquinolines; Italy; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting; Young Adult

The aims of this study were to assess the safety and antiemetic efficacy of multiple-day dosing of palonosetron plus dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for germ cell tumors.. Forty-one men undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer received palonosetron 0.25 mg IV once daily 30 min before chemotherapy on days 1, 3, and 5 plus IV dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy on days 1 and 2, and 8 mg PO bid on days 6 and 7 and 4 mg bid on day 8. Safety and efficacy were assessed in 24-h intervals for 9 days. Efficacy endpoints included emesis, intensity of nausea and its interference with patient functioning, and rescue antiemetic use. A subset of patients (n = 11) was studied for electrocardiograph effects and pharmacokinetic evaluation.. This multiple-day antiemetic regimen was safe, with headache and constipation the most common treatment-related adverse events, mostly mild. Neither adverse events nor electrocardiographic changes appeared to increase in frequency, duration, or intensity over time despite a 1.42-fold systemic accumulation of palonosetron with repeated doses. The majority of patients had no emesis at any time throughout days 1-5 (51%) or days 6-9 (83%), had no moderate-to-severe nausea, and did not require rescue medication. Most patients reported that nausea had no significant effect on daily functioning on days 1-4 (72%) and days 5-9 (85%).. Palonosetron on days 1, 3, and 5, along with a regimen of dexamethasone, was safe and well tolerated and effectively controlled both nausea and emesis in patients undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Nausea; Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; United States; Vomiting

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a significant concern in drug development due to the poor concordance between preclinical and clinical findings of liver toxicity. We hypothesized that the DILI types (hepatotoxic side effects) seen in the clinic can be translated into the development of predictive in silico models for use in the drug discovery phase. We identified 13 hepatotoxic side effects with high accuracy for classifying marketed drugs for their DILI potential. We then developed in silico predictive models for each of these 13 side effects, which were further combined to construct a DILI prediction system (DILIps). The DILIps yielded 60-70% prediction accuracy for three independent validation sets. To enhance the confidence for identification of drugs that cause severe DILI in humans, the "Rule of Three" was developed in DILIps by using a consensus strategy based on 13 models. This gave high positive predictive value (91%) when applied to an external dataset containing 206 drugs from three independent literature datasets. Using the DILIps, we screened all the drugs in DrugBank and investigated their DILI potential in terms of protein targets and therapeutic categories through network modeling. We demonstrated that two therapeutic categories, anti-infectives for systemic use and musculoskeletal system drugs, were enriched for DILI, which is consistent with current knowledge. We also identified protein targets and pathways that are related to drugs that cause DILI by using pathway analysis and co-occurrence text mining. While marketed drugs were the focus of this study, the DILIps has a potential as an evaluation tool to screen and prioritize new drug candidates or chemicals, such as environmental chemicals, to avoid those that might cause liver toxicity. We expect that the methodology can be also applied to other drug safety endpoints, such as renal or cardiovascular toxicity.

Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Databases, Factual; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Liver; Models, Biological; Predictive Value of Tests

Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Boronic Acids; Bortezomib; Drug Approval; Drug Interactions; Drug Monitoring; Drug Therapy; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Fluorobenzenes; Glucans; Glucose; Glucosylceramidase; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Icodextrin; Immunosuppressive Agents; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nurse's Role; Omalizumab; Palonosetron; Patient Education as Topic; Pyrazines; Pyrimidines; Quinazolines; Quinuclidines; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Sulfonamides