palonosetron and Nausea

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzeneacetamides; Dexamethasone; Humans; Nausea; Palonosetron; Piperazines; Pyridines; Quality of Life; Vomiting

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).. We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.. Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment co. This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Nausea; Network Meta-Analysis; Palonosetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly occurs after chemotherapy, adversely affecting patients' quality of life. Recently, studies have shown inconsistent antiemetic effects of two common 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists, namely, palonosetron and granisetron. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing CINV.. Relevant studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was the complete response (CR) rate. Secondary outcomes were headache and constipation events.. In total, 12 randomized controlled trials and five retrospective studies were reviewed. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior to granisetron in all phases in terms of the CR rate (acute phases: odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.54; delayed phases: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13-1.69; and overall phases: OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.17-1.60). Moreover, a non-significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the headache event, but the occurrence of the constipation event was lower in the granisetron group than in the palonosetron group.. Palonosetron showed a higher protective efficacy in all phases of CINV prevention, especially in delayed phases, and no relatively severe adverse effects were observed.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Granisetron; Humans; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Olanzapine, neurokinin-1-receptor-antagonists (NK-1-RA), and thalidomide added to palonosetron + dexamethasone (PALO-DEX) have been evaluated in separate studies as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the prophylactic efficacy of these agents in combination with PALO-DEX.. PubMed, Medline/Ovid, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception through 22 Mar 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane methodology. A Bayesian network meta-analysis using random-effects models was used to asses complete response (CR) and rate of no nausea (RNN) in acute, delayed, and overall phases and were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible interval (95% CrI). Ranking probabilities of treatments were calculated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to identify the probability of a given treatment as the best option against the worst option.. Nine RCTs involving two thousand nine hundred fifty-nine patients were included. The olanzapine-based regimen showed greater CR in the acute, delayed, and overall-phases versus the PALO-DEX regimen (OR = 3.97, 95% CrI = 1.02-19.13; OR = 5.62, 95% CrI = 1.66-28.58; OR = 4.79, 95% CrI = 1.40-24.02, respectively). Additionally, it showed greater RNN than the NK-1-RA-based and the PALO-DEX regimens in the delayed phase only (OR = 2.90, 95% CrI = 1.34-5.15; OR = 4.53, 95% CrI = 1.89-10.55, respectively). Olanzapine-, NK-1-RA-, and thalidomide-based regimens did not differ in CR in the three phases. SUCRA probabilities ranked the olanzapine-based regimen as the best option in terms of CR and RNN, while ranking the NK-1-RA-based regimens as the second best option in terms of CR throughout the three phases.. Based on the data included in the analyses, there is insufficient evidence to support adding thalidomide or NK-1-RA to PALO-DEX in preventing CINV induced by HEC. However, adding olanzapine to PALO-DEX achieves better CR and RNN. Olanzapine side-effects and the absence of direct comparisons explain why some guidelines are cautious in suggesting the use of olanzapine.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Bayes Theorem; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Nausea; Network Meta-Analysis; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thalidomide; Vomiting

Review the clinical evidence of tropisetron or palonosetron, an old- and new-generation serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist (RA), respectively, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer, and evaluate any difference in efficacy trends. A literature search of the EMBASE and PubMed databases was performed to identify publications of intravenous (IV) tropisetron (generic forms or Navoban®) for the treatment of CINV in patients with various cancers. Data from the pivotal clinical studies evaluating the IV formulation of Aloxi® (palonosetron HCl) were also considered. The effectiveness and safety of each antiemetic was summarized. Sixteen papers for tropisetron fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were extracted for full analysis; publications from six pivotal palonosetron clinical trials were considered. No direct data comparisons could be made between the two drugs, due to the varying definitions of efficacy endpoints between studies. For tropisetron, the rates of no emesis were lower in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) versus moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). For palonosetron, the rates of complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication) were comparable in the MEC and HEC settings, demonstrating the effectiveness of this agent in patients receiving HEC. Both antiemetics offered some protection against nausea, although lower rates of no nausea were achieved compared with rates of no emesis. Two trials that evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron and tropisetron within the same study reported that palonosetron was more effective than tropisetron in controlling delayed vomiting in the HEC and MEC settings, with significantly higher rates of no emesis observed (P≤0.01). Palonosetron was non-inferior or more efficacious in controlling CINV compared with other older 5-HT3RAs, such as dolasetron, ondansetron, and granisetron. Conversely, tropisetron was no more efficacious than ondansetron or granisetron. Both tropisetron and palonosetron were generally well tolerated, with adverse event profiles consistent with drugs of this class (e.g., headache, constipation, and diarrhea). These data suggest that palonosetron is a highly selective prophylactic agent that may have an improved therapeutic profile compared with tropisetron, and is a feasible treatment option for controlling CINV in patients with cancer.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Female; Humans; Male; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Tropisetron; Vomiting

To investigate the cost of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for cancer treatment in real life.. A retrospective analysis of all consecutives patients with advanced lung cancer treated in platinum-based (carboplatin or cisplatin) chemotherapy and with breast cancer treated with anthracycline and cyclophosphamide -based chemotherapy at our Medical Oncology Unit during 4 years was performed. The costs of drugs are at the Pharmacy of our Hospital (&OV0556;).. We evaluated 110 patients with lung cancer and 55 patients with breast cancer. Concerning lung cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 133 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and dexamethasone (DEX) vs. the combination of palonosetron (PALO) and DEX for each patient. Concerning breast cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 78 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and DEX vs. the combination of PALO and DEX for each patient. Combining the medical costs of antiemetic therapy with the measure of efficacy represented by the complete response, the combination of NEPA and DEX is cost-effective for preventing CINV in HEC and MEC cancer treatment.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dexamethasone; Drug Costs; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

The aim is to conduct an updated systematic review comparing palonosetron to other 5-HT. Random-effects analysis model was used to generate odds ratio (OR), risk differences (RD) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CI). Funnel plots to assess for biases and cumulative meta-analyses to assess effect size over time were generated.. 4145 patients were randomized to palonosetron and 4911 received other 5-HT. Considering the vast amount of resources needed to conduct RCTs, resources should be dedicated to other prophylactic treatments/settings which have not been as well explored.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Nausea; Neoplasms; Odds Ratio; Palonosetron; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is a common side effect of radiotherapy and can affect up to 50-80% of patients, potentially causing detrimental effects to physical health, clinical efficacy, and patient quality of life. Antiemetic drugs act on receptors involved in the emesis pathway to block the uptake of neurotransmitters and inhibit stimulation of vomiting centers in the brain to prevent and treat RINV. The most commonly prescribed antiemetics for RINV are 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RA). Guidelines describing the optimal management of RINV are produced by the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer, the European Society of Medical Oncology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. This review will present findings from research on antiemetic management for RINV conducted at our center.. A selective review of research conducted in a palliative outpatient radiotherapy clinic relating to antiemetic management for RINV was performed.. Several studies investigating the efficacy of different routes of administration, new antiemetic drug types, and novel combinations of antiemetics have been tested at our clinic to elucidate which approach provides the best response. These include studies on the use of ondansetron rapidly dissolving film, palonosetron, and the addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to traditional 5-HT3 RA regimens.. These studies provide a framework for future research and could potentially inform changes to future guidelines to include the use of these novel regimens and techniques.

Topics: Adult; Ambulatory Care Facilities; Antiemetics; Humans; Medical Oncology; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Ondansetron; Outpatients; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Radiotherapy; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Agonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

A dexamethasone-sparing regimen consisting of palonosetron plus 1-day dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been studied previously. Here, we evaluate the noninferiority of the dexamethasone-sparing regimen in overall antiemetic control using a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD).. We conducted a systematic review for randomized trials reporting CINV outcomes for the comparison of palonosetron plus 1-day dexamethasone (d1 arm) versus the same regimen followed by dexamethasone on days 2-3 after chemotherapy (d3 arm) in chemotherapy-naïve adult patients undergoing either moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-containing chemotherapy. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched electronically. A manual search was also conducted. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the overall 5-day study period. The noninferiority margin was set at -8.0% (d1 arm-d3 arm).. Five studies (. This IPD meta-analysis indicates that the dexamethasone-sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall antiemetic control in patients undergoing MEC or AC-containing chemotherapy, irrespective of known risk factors for CINV.. Although dexamethasone in combination with other antiemetic agents has been used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), it is of clinical importance to minimize total dose of dexamethasone in patients undergoing multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy. This individual-patient-data meta-analysis from five randomized controlled trials (1,194 patients) demonstrated a noninferiority of the dexamethasone-sparing regimen for complete response and complete control of CINV. The outcomes were comparable across patients with different characteristics. These findings thus help physicians minimize use of the steroid and further reduce the burden of dexamethasone-related side effects in patients undergoing multiple consecutive courses of emetogenic chemotherapy.

Topics: Dexamethasone; Drug Dosage Calculations; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Vomiting

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be improved with guideline-consistent use of antiemetics. However, adherence to antiemetic guidelines remains often insufficient. Therefore, new strategies that improve adherence are needed.. To review the latest antiemetic guideline recommendations and provide an update on the use of NEPA, a fixed combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA) netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA palonosetron (Akynzeo®).. Analysis of the literature was performed, including guidelines, published literature, congress data on NEPA, and relevant articles on CINV.. Nurses are in a unique position to promote guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis and are central in the education of patients and caregivers. Thus, nurses’ continuous education on antiemetic treatments is key for the prevention and management of CINV. NEPA offers a simplified antiemetic therapy with the potential to increase guideline adherence.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Oncology Nursing; Palonosetron; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pyridines; Vomiting

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.. 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.. 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.. 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

This update of the 2013 clinical practice guideline provides clinicians with guidance regarding the use of aprepitant and palonosetron for the prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children. The recommendations were based on three systematic reviews. Substantive changes were made to the guideline recommendations including the inclusion of palonosetron to the 5-HT

Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Infant; Isoquinolines; Male; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dexamethasone; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs) are widely used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) control in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and/or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Whether the efficacy and toxicity of antiemesis are different among various NK-1RA-based triple regimens is unknown.. Data of complete responses (CRs) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted from electronic databases. Efficacy and toxicity were integrated by pairwise and network meta-analyses.. Thirty-six trials involving 18 889 patients using triple regimens (NK-1RA+serotonin receptor antagonists [5HT3RA] + dexamethasone) or duplex regimen (5HT3RA+dexamethasone) to control CINV were included in the analysis. Different NK-1RA-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CRs. In patients with HEC, almost all triple regimens showed statistically significantly higher CRs than duplex regimen (odds ratio [OR]. Different NK-1RAs-based triple regimens shared equivalent effect on CINV control. Various triple regimens had superior antiemetic effect than duplex regimen in patients with HEC. Only aprepitant-based triple regimen showed better CINV control compared with duplex regimen in patients receiving MEC. Palonosetron and first-generation 5HT3RAs might share equivalent CINV control in the combination of NK-1RAs and dexamethasone. Lower doses of dexamethasone might be applied when used with NK-1RAs and 5HT3RAs.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Network Meta-Analysis; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

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

Neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists (RAs) are commonly coadministered with serotonin (5-HT3) RAs (e.g. palonosetron (PALO)) to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), an oral fixed combination of netupitant (NETU)-a new NK1 RA-and PALO, is currently under development. In vitro data suggest that NETU inhibits CYP3A4 and is a substrate for and weak inhibitor of P-glycoprotein (P-gp). This review evaluates potential drug-drug interactions between NETU or NEPA and CYP3A4 substrates/inducers/inhibitors or P-gp substrates in healthy subjects. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were evaluated for each drug when NETU was coadministered with PALO (single doses) and when single doses of NETU or NEPA were coadministered with CYP3A4 substrates (erythromycin (ERY), midazolam (MID), dexamethasone (DEX), or oral contraceptives), inhibitors (ketoconazole (KETO)), or inducers (rifampicin (RIF)), or a P-gp substrate (digoxin (DIG)). Results showed no relevant PK interactions between NETU and PALO. Coadministration of NETU increased MID and ERY exposure and significantly increased DEX exposure in a dose-dependent manner; NETU exposure was unaffected. NEPA coadministration had no clinically significant effect on oral contraception, although levonorgestrel exposure increased. NETU exposure increased after coadministration of NEPA with KETO and decreased after coadministration with RIF; PALO exposure was unaffected. NETU coadministration did not influence DIG exposure. In conclusion, there were no clinically relevant interactions between NETU and PALO, or NEPA and oral contraceptives (based on levonorgestrel and ethinylestradiol exposure). Coadministration of NETU or NEPA with CYP3A4 inducers/inhibitors/substrates should be done with caution. Dose reduction is recommended for DEX. Dose adjustments are not needed for NETU coadministration with P-gp substrates.

Topics: Animals; ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B; Dexamethasone; Drug Combinations; Drug Interactions; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Extrapolation of efficacy from adult populations to pediatrics may be appropriate if it is reasonable to assume that the 2 populations have similar disease progression and response to intervention. When full extrapolation of efficacy is deemed appropriate, the pediatric dose can be determined by "matching" exposure to a drug with that observed in adult patients. This approach has been used in certain therapeutic areas to alleviate the burden of pediatric clinical trials. We present here a case in which exposure matching is not appropriate.. Data analyses including pharmacokinetics and exposure-response were performed using data obtained from 2 pediatric chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting trials for intravenously administered palonosetron (Aloxi; a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist) injection and the results were compared with adult findings.. At the approved doses for adults (0.25 mg) and pediatric patients (20 μg/kg), mean systemic exposure (area under the curve) of palonosetron in pediatric patients was approximately 3-fold higher than that in adults, whereas the response rate was similar between the 2 populations. Across pediatric patients, those younger than 6 years of age appeared to have a higher response than those ages 6 years or older, even though estimated systemic exposure was comparable between these age groups.. Overall, these analyses provide an example in which pediatric and adult exposure data alone are insufficient to adequately identify effective pediatric doses and raise questions about the appropriateness of exposure matching for other drugs in the same therapeutic class. In such cases, pediatric dose-ranging and efficacy studies are needed.

Topics: Adolescent; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Area Under Curve; Child; Child, Preschool; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Infant; Infusions, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Logistic Models; Male; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

A variety of triple antiemetic regimens are being used to prevent cisplatin-based chemotherapy induced delayed emesis and nausea in cancer patients. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacies of the different regimens. Electronic searches of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases were performed to identify randomized controlled trials, and data were analyzed using JAGS, Stata 14.0 and R project. The primary outcome was a complete response (CR). The secondary outcomes were no vomiting (NV) and no nausea (NN). Among the 398 studies identified, 10 were eligible and included, providing data on nine regimens. In the CR analysis, the absolute rank of netupitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone (NEPA) was 0.8579. In the NV and NN analyses, NEPA's absolute ranks were 0.8631 and 0.7902, respectively. The compliance of patients treated with rolapitant + granisetron + dexamethasone (RGD) was the best due to a low incidence of adverse events, and good compliance was also observed with NEPA. It was difficult to achieve good compliance with aprepitant + granisetron + dexamethasone (AGD). Overall, NEPA was the best regimen, and aprepitant + ondansetron + dexamethasone (AOD) is also worthy of recommendation because of its low cost and good effect. For patients with severe constipation, hiccups, asthenia and/or delayed nausea, RGD is worthy of consideration.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spiro Compounds; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Antiemetic prophylaxis for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the development of new antiemetic drugs are expanding areas of research. However, studies of antiemetic prophylaxis in chemoradiotherapy have not been prioritised, and little is known about the proper timing, duration, and combination of antiemetic drugs for the prevention of chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (C-RINV).. The article summarises the available antiemetic studies, the evidence for antiemetic prophylaxis of C-RINV, and the future perspectives for antiemetic research in chemoradiotherapy.. Antiemetic prophylaxis for patients receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy has, for many years, been an orphan research area. The distinction between acute and delayed nausea and vomiting does not apply to fractionated radiotherapy, and prophylaxis should be considered to cover the entire course of treatment and not only the acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The best prophylaxis in women receiving fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin is a combination of the neurokinin receptor antagonist fosaprepitant with palonosetron and dexamethasone. Even with this three-drug combination nausea is a significant problem and the effect of multi-receptor targeting antiemetics such as olanzapine and amisulpride should be explored in this setting.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Vomiting

Current guidelines recommend the combination of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, together with corticosteroids, in order to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and it is to be considered with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a novel, highly selective NK1 RA, and palonosetron, a new-generation 5-HT3 RA, targeting two major emetic pathways in a single oral capsule. In clinical trials, NEPA administered on day 1 together with dexamethasone was highly effective and well tolerated in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with solid tumors undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. NEPA offers maximal convenience, and as a simple guideline-based regimen, has the potential to improve adherence to guidelines.

Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Combinations; Drug Interactions; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. The use of a combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist has significantly improved the control of acute and delayed emesis in single-day chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a different half-life, different binding capacity, and a different mechanism of action than the first generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, appears to be the most effective agent in its class. Netupitant, is a new NK-1 receptor antagonist with a high binding affinity, a long half-life of 90 hours, is metabolized by CYP3A4, and is an inhibitor of CYP3A4. NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron which has recently been employed in Phase II and Phase III clinical trials for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC and HEC). The clinical trials demonstrated that NEPA (300 mg of netupitant plus 0.50 mg of palonosetron) significantly improved the prevention of CINV compared to the use of palonosetron alone in patients receiving either HEC or MEC. The clinical efficacy was maintained over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. NEPA (Akynzeo(®)) has recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy.

Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Combinations; Humans; Isoquinolines; Molecular Structure; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Combination antiemetic regimens targeting multiple molecular pathways associated with emesis have become the standard of care for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) related to highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapies. Antiemetic consensus guidelines from several professional societies are widely available and updated regularly as new data emerges. Unfortunately, despite substantial research supporting the notion that guideline conformity improves CINV control, adherence to antiemetic guidelines is unsatisfactory. While studies are needed to identify specific barriers to guideline use and explore measures to enhance adherence, a novel approach has been taken to improve clinician adherence and patient compliance, with the development of a new combination antiemetic. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of a new highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and the pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron. This convenient antiemetic combination offers guideline-consistent prophylaxis by targeting two critical pathways associated with CINV in a single oral dose administered only once per cycle. This paper will review and discuss the NEPA data in the context of how this first combination antiemetic may overcome some of the barriers interfering with adherence to antiemetic guidelines, enhance patient compliance, and offer a possible advance in the prevention of CINV for patients.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drugs, Generic; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Palonosetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT(3)RA) with a strong binding affinity and long half-life, has been used in numerous trials for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron compared to other 5-HT(3)RAs in CINV prophylaxis.. A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing palonosetron to other 5-HT(3)RAs in CINV prophylaxis. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving a complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no emesis, no nausea, or taking no rescue medications. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients suffering from 5-HT(3)RA-related adverse events.. Sixteen RCTs were identified with 2,896 patients randomized to palonosetron and 3,187 patients randomized to other 5-HT(3)RAs. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior in CR, CC, no emesis, or no nausea and was sometimes superior in no rescue medication. Subgroup analyses demonstrated similarity in efficacy between highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy cohorts. In the acute phase, statistical superiority of palonosetron was found for trials that did not allow dexamethasone; conversely, RCTs that administered dexamethasone to all patients were nonsignificant. Palonosetron was statistically significantly safer in dizziness and mean QTc interval change and similar in constipation, headache, and diarrhea. Clinical superiority of palonosetron was reached in 3 of 19 analyzed efficacy and safety endpoints.. Palonosetron is safer and more efficacious than other 5-HT(3)RAs. Future antiemetic guidelines should discuss the merits of including palonosetron as a first-line treatment.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

5-Hydroxytryptamine3-receptor antagonists (5-HT3-RA) are the most widely used antiemetics in oncology, and although tolerability is high, QTC prolongation has been observed in some patients.. The purpose of this article is to outline the risk of cardiac adverse events (AEs) from 5-HT3-RAs, with focus on the three most commonly used, ondansetron, granisetron and palonosetron.. Most of the studies analyze electrocardiogram (ECG) changes after 5-HT3-RA administrations in healthy, young adults, or in noncancer patients to treat postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Only a few studies have addressed ECG changes in cancer patients treated for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Investigations in cancer patients are essential, because these patients are older and have a higher incidence of comorbidity, than those usually included in clinical trials. Furthermore, polypharmacy is frequent and drug-drug interactions between chemotherapy and other QTc-prolonging drugs may influence the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the 5-HT3-RAs. During the next 10 - 15 years a huge increase in the number of cancer patients is expected, primarily in the group of 65-plus-year old. Therefore it will be crucial to address the incidence of cardiac AEs in cancer patients with known heart disease receiving chemotherapy and a 5-HT3 RA for the prophylaxis of CINV.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Long QT Syndrome; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. The introduction of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists has been a major factor in the improvement of the prevention of chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis. Palonosetron , a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a different half-life, a different binding capacity, and a different mechanism of action than the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists appears to be the most effective agent in this drug class.. Palonosetron's chemistry, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, clinical efficacy, including comparison with other antiemetics, role in controlling nausea, potential role in multi-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, and overall safety are discussed.. The clinical data in the literature have established palonosetron as the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist of choice in terms of efficacy and safety for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Three international guidelines have listed palonosetron as the preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Due to its higher efficacy, the use of palonosetron may be more cost effective compared to the generic first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Clinical organizations' pharmacy and formulary committees should consider efficacy when making recommendations for agents for the prevention of CINV.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

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

Nausea and vomiting are well recognized in different clinical situations, suggesting that no single mechanism is likely to be responsible for their production. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a negative impact on quality of life and this may lead to a refusal of curative therapy or to a decline in palliative benefits offered by cytotoxic treatment. Palonosetron is a new agent in the class of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs), and differs from the other agents by its higher receptor-binding affinity and longer half-life. These pharmacological properties have resulted in improved antiemetic activity in clinical trials, particularly in the treatment of delayed CINV following moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).. A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library and meeting materials from ASCO and MASCC were all searched.. Palonosetron was the only serotonin receptor antagonist approved for prevention of delayed CINV caused by MEC and its use was incorporated in guideline recommendations. To date, several treatment settings such as multiple day chemotherapy require further studies to improve emesis related to therapy.

Topics: Animals; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quinuclidines; Radiotherapy; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Substance P; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a concern for many cancer patients. It can have an enormous impact on quality of life. CINV occurring in the first 24 hours after treatment is considered acute, and CINV occurring on days 2 through 5 after treatment is considered delayed. Anticipatory nausea and depression can also occur when patients are reminded of their chemotherapy treatment. CINV can lead to weight changes, fatigue, and the need for additional medications. Even mild to moderate CINV can increase health care utilization and costs, as well as delay treatment. Nausea and vomiting are separate events, although their mechanisms are entwined. Drugs that stop vomiting do not necessarily treat nausea. Control of CINV allows patients to complete treatment and to minimize use of health care resources and additional medications. Current antiemesis agents, such as 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) antagonists and neurokinin-1 (NK-1) antagonists, have markedly decreased hospitalization for chemotherapy and have nearly eliminated acute emesis. The second-generation 5-HT3 receptor palonosetron has a unique pharmacology that makes it especially effective at preventing delayed emesis.

Topics: Allosteric Regulation; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Serotonin; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains both a feared side effect of cancer treatment and a focus of many supportive care initiatives/guidelines. The class of medications known as serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) are integral in the prevention of CINV from both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron (ALOXI(®)), a second-generation 5-HT3RA, has a higher affinity for the 5-HT3 receptor, has a longer half-life and has unique interactions with the 5-HT3 receptor compared with the current first-generation 5-HT3RA such as ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron and tropisetron. This may allow palonosetron an advantage in control of CINV. This review article examines the available evidence, the pharmacokinetics and the safety and tolerability of palonosetron in the prevention of CINV.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Topics: Adult; Dexamethasone; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

A number of studies have reported the difference between the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and palonosetron in preventing the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Through analysing the efficacy and safety in palonosetron-treated patients, it can provide evidence for palonosetron administration. We identified randomised controlled clinical trials comparing palonosetron with the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the prevention of CINV in cancer patients. Nine studies investigated the outcomes in a total of 3463 cases. Compared with the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, the cumulative incidences of emesis were significantly reduced in the patients treated with palonosetron (0.25 mg i.v.) on the first day [relative risk (RR) = 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-1.17], from 2 to 5 days (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.16-1.36) and the overall five days (RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.13-1.34). Regarding the drug safety, there was no significant difference between palonosetron-treated group and the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists-treated group. Results from the analysis suggest that palonosetron is highly effective in preventing nausea and vomiting in the days after administration of moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy agents.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Data from two randomized trials, evaluating a single-day regimen of palonosetron plus dexamethasone against emesis due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, were assessed for the impact of age on outcome in a pooled sample of women receiving anthracycline and/or cyclophosphamide (AC)-containing chemotherapy.. Chemo-naïve breast cancer patients randomized to receive palonosetron (0.25 mg) plus dexamethasone (8 mg IV) on day 1 of chemotherapy (n = 200), or the same regimen followed by oral dexamethasone (8 mg) on days 2 and 3 (n = 205), were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR: no vomiting and no rescue anti-emetics) in the 5-day study period. The effect of the 1-day regimen and age (<50 and ≥ 50 years) was investigated by a meta-analysis of individual patient data.. Younger patients comprised 43 % and 49 % of the 1-day and 3-day regimen groups, respectively; 94 % of the pooled sample received the AC combination. There were no between-treatment differences in CR rate according to age during all observation periods. In the 1-day regimen group, 55.2 % of younger patients achieved overall CR compared with 54 % of older patients. In the 3-day regimen group, 51.5 % of younger patients achieved overall CR compared with 58.7 % of older patients. In the adjusted analysis, younger age was not associated with overall CR to treatment (risk difference, -3.1 %; 95 % CI, -13.0 to 6.7 %; P = 0.533).. These results provide evidence that, irrespective of age, the dexamethasone-sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall anti-emetic protection in women undergoing AC-containing chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Aged; Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Breast Neoplasms; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

This review summarizes recent developments in the management of gastrointestinal symptoms experienced by cancer patients and provides a framework for education, assessment and monitoring, and treatment.. Although many viable treatment options exist, gastrointestinal symptoms - particularly nausea and vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea - continue to challenge both patients and clinicians. Current clinical guidelines now recommend that patients treated with moderate emetic risk chemotherapy regimens be preferentially treated with the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, palonosetron, in combination with dexamethasone. A large randomized trial has also recently validated that single-dose fosaprepitant is equivalent to the standard 3-day, aprepitant regimen. New medications, such as skin patch delivery of granisetron for nausea or methylnaltrexone for constipation, show promise in both the management of symptoms and as preventive agents. The integration of complementary and alternative therapies, such as relaxation techniques, ginger, and electroacupuncture may also assist with symptom relief. Accurate assessment is essential, but often problematic, especially as the patient's experience of gastrointestinal distress is often disproportionate with objective measures. New methodologies that harness technology to collect patient-reported outcomes may improve the accuracy of assessment, provide a better picture of the patient's experience of gastrointestinal symptoms, and deliver a means to simultaneously monitor symptoms, educate patients, and collect longitudinal data.. Palliative management of gastrointestinal symptoms in advanced cancer patients requires a multipronged approach that entails effective assessment, judicious use of latest evidence-based approaches, and monitoring that incorporates both clinical measures and patient-reported outcomes. When combined with refinements in the overall clinical approach to symptom management, standardized instruments that streamline data collection and enable data warehousing will support better symptom management.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Zingiber officinale

Compared with solid tumor patients, those with hematological malignancies are at particular risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) because of their young age, exposure to highly-emetogenic induction, consolidation and salvage regimens, the high-dose conditioning regimens used before stem cell transplantation (SCT), and the heavy psychological burden of such treatments. In the absence of prophylaxis, around 75% of patients undergoing SCT experience delayed CINV. With first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, only about 20% are completely protected from nausea and vomiting, and this frequent and debilitating adverse event has not been fully addressed. In contrast to solid tumors, there are no internationally agreed guidelines for the prevention and treatment of CINV in hematological malignancies. Work on a consensus is urgently required. The second-generation 5-HT(3) antagonist palonosetron is highly effective in preventing CINV in patients with solid tumors. The extended half-life of this agent and its mechanisms of action including allosteric binding, positive cooperativity and 5-HT(3) receptor internalization, may make it particularly effective in controlling delayed CINV. Although controlled comparisons against first-generation 5HT(3) agents have not yet been conducted in the setting of SCT, available evidence suggests that palonosetron may prove beneficial in preventing CINV in high risk patients with hematological malignancies.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Half-Life; Hematologic Neoplasms; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Salvage Therapy; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Stem Cell Transplantation; Transplantation Conditioning; Vomiting

The objective of this work is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing a single intravenous dose of palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg with other 5-HT(3)R in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic (MoHE) chemotherapy.. Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoints were the incidence of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. The side effects of each treatment were analyzed. A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of the use of corticosteroids. The results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) and the correspondent 95% confidence interval (CI).. Five studies were included, with 2057 patients. PAL was compared with ondansetron, granisetron, and dolasetron. Patients in PAL group had less nausea, both acute (RR = 0.86; CI 95% = 0.76 to 0.96; p = 0.007) and delayed (RR = 0.82; CI95% = 0.75 to 0.89; p < 0.00001). They also had less acute vomiting (RR = 0.76; CI 95% = 0.66 to 0.88; p = 0.0002) and delayed vomiting (RR = 0.76; CI95% = 0.68 to 0.85; p < 0.00001). There were no statistical differences in side effects like headache (RR = 0.84; CI 95% = 0.61 to 1.17; p = 0.30), dizziness (RR = 0.40; CI 95% = 0.13 to 1.27; p = 0.12), constipation (RR = 1.29; CI 95% = 0.77 to 2.17; p = 0.33) or diarrhea (RR = 0.67; CI 95% = 0.24 to 1.85; p = 0.44). Patients receiving PAL presented less nausea and vomiting regardless of the use of corticoids. We found no statistical heterogeneity in the global analysis.. PAL was more effective than the other 5-HT(3)R in preventing acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving MoHE treatments, regardless of the use of concomitant corticosteroids.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare treatment effectiveness and adverse effects in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with palonosetron to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).. We identified randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) comparing palonosetron with first-generation 5-HT3RA in the prevention of CINV in cancer patients. Meta-analyses were performed on homogeneous studies. Fixed or random-effects models were used to combine data.. Eight eligible trials were identified, reporting outcomes on 3,592 patients. Meta-analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of palonosetron compared with first-generation 5-HT3RA in prevention of acute CINV (p = .0003), delayed CINV (p < .00001), and overall phase of CINV (p < .00001). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences in favor of both 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg of palonosetron in prevention of all phases of CINV. There were no statistically significant differences between 0.25 and 0.75 mg of palonosetron. Compared with the first-generation 5-HT3RA, 0.75 mg of palonosetron showed a statistically significant difference in the occurrence of constipation (p = .04).. The use of palonosetron should be considered an integral part of adjuvant therapy for prevention of the acute, delayed, and overall phases of CINV. The 0.25 mg intravenous palonosetron dose is as effective as the 0.75 mg intravenous palonosetron dose. However, 0.75 mg intravenous palonosetron causes constipation more frequently than the first-generation 5-HT3RA.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Constipation; Dexamethasone; Headache; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline for antiemetics in oncology.. A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and meeting materials from ASCO and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer were all searched. Primary outcomes of interest were complete response and rates of any vomiting or nausea.. Thirty-seven trials met prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria for this systematic review. Two systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration were identified; one surveyed the pediatric literature. The other compared the relative efficacy of the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists.. Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist. A large trial validated the equivalency of fosaprepitant, a single-day intravenous formulation, with aprepitant; either therapy is appropriate. Preferential use of palonosetron is recommended for moderate emetic risk regimens, combined with dexamethasone. For low-risk agents, patients can be offered dexamethasone before the first dose of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing high emetic risk radiation therapy should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours after treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. The Update Committee noted the importance of continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy. Clinicians underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as emesis.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Radiotherapy; Serotonin Antagonists; Surveys and Questionnaires; Vomiting

Serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs) are used to control chemotherapy-induced emesis. Although they have the same general mechanism of action (blockade of serotonin receptors), they have different chemical structures and may have different effects.. To compare efficacy of different serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs) in the control of acute and delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.. We searched CENTRAL, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane PaPaS Group, PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS databases. Our most recent search was in March 2009.. Randomised trials comparing 5-HT(3) RAs in an adult cancer population.. We extracted information from the included studies on the control of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting, either as a single or a combined outcome. Where appropriate, we combined the results of similar trials. We carried out sensitivity and subgroup analyses to test the robustness of our findings.. We included 16 randomised trials (7808 participants). Nine of the trials compared granisetron versus ondansetron. No other drug comparison was studied in more than one trial. The meta-analyses of the granisetron versus ondansetron trials found similar results for the two drugs on acute vomiting (eight trials, 4256 participants, odds ratio (OR) 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.02), acute nausea (seven trials, 4160 participants, OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10), delayed vomiting (three trials, 1119 participants, OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34) and delayed nausea (two trials, 1024 participants, OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.24). Granisetron and ondansetron showed similar effects on headache and diarrhoea, with the possible exception of less constipation associated with ondansetron.One study of 1114 participants comparing palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone showed superiority of palonosetron in controlling delayed vomiting (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.85) and delayed nausea (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.10). Complete response for delayed nausea and vomiting was also in favour of the combination palonosetron and dexamethasone (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.07).. Ondansetron and granisetron appear to be equivalent drugs for the prevention of acute and delayed emesis following the use of highly emetogenic chemotherapy.According to one single trial the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone was superior to granisetron and dexamethasone in controlling delayed emesis. However, more evidence is needed before palonosetron could become the candidate 5-HT(3) RA for the control of delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Dexamethasone; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

A large number of different 5-hydroxytryptamine (HT)(3) receptor antagonists have been marketed with the indication of preventing nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy--palonosetron is the most recently developed of these. Pharmacologic studies have revealed that palonosetron has a long half-life, a high affinity for 5-HT(3) receptors, exhibits allosteric binding to 5-HT(3) receptors and possess positive cooperativity. Although interesting, pharmacologic differences are only useful if they result in clinical advantages, such as an increase in efficacy and/or an improvement in tolerability. We summarize preclinical and clinical studies of palonosetron and compare the efficacy and tolerability with the other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, ondansetron, granisetron and dolasetron.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Since the advent of the 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) in the 1990s, dramatic improvements have been achieved in the field of antiemetic therapy. The enhanced prevention of delayed and overall chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) offered by palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3RA and aprepitant, the first neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RA) represent the only significant treatment advances in the past decade. While initial trials of single-dose palonosetron indicated a potential benefit over first-generation 5-HT3RAs, only recently have new data become available, increasing the weight of evidence distinguishing it as a new 5-HT3RA in the class.. History of antiemetics and palonosetron, including clinical trials and pharmacological research, and literature published between 1981 and 2010 are covered.. Unique pharmacological characteristics of palonosetron exhibiting prolonged half-life, high receptor affinity, allosteric interactions and positive cooperativity with 5-HT3 receptor resulting in long-term alteration and internalization of this receptor may explain the clinical observation of palonosetron.. This review of recent progress in antiemetic therapy focuses on the newest data on palonosetron and discusses future trials and implications for clinical practice, with the overall goal of learning from history.

Topics: Animals; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dopamine Antagonists; Evidence-Based Medicine; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient characteristics (e.g., female gender, younger age, low alcohol consumption and history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. This article provides a detailed description of palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, which has been approved for the prevention of acute CINV in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for the prevention of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In recent studies, compared with the first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone demonstrated better control of delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and had a similar safety profile. Owing to its efficacy in controlling both acute and delayed CINV, palonosetron may be very effective in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Topics: Antiemetics; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Risk Factors; Safety; Serotonin Receptor Agonists; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone have significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed CINV remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists. Casopitant is another NK-1 receptor antagonist that is under review by the FDA after recent completion of Phase III clinical trials. The introduction of these new agents has generated revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron, aprepitant and casopitant with other antiemetic agents (olanzapine, gabapentin, cannabinoids) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Piperazines; Piperidines; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Palonosetron is a second-generation serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, with a distinct pharmacological profile that differs from first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Intravenous palonosetron is widely indicated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the acute and delayed phases following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and the prevention of CINV in the acute phase following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In the US, oral palonosetron is approved for the prevention of CINV in the acute phase following MEC (although this formulation is not currently available), and intravenous palonosetron is indicated for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the first 24 hours following surgery. All indications are currently limited to adult patients. Intravenous palonosetron was noninferior to intravenous ondansetron (with statistically greater efficacy than ondansetron) or dolasetron in preventing CINV following MEC, or to intravenous ondansetron or granisetron in preventing CINV following HEC, in the acute phase. Statistically greater efficacy was seen with intravenous palonosetron than ondansetron or dolasetron in preventing CINV following MEC in the delayed phase. Oral palonosetron was noninferior to intravenous palonosetron in preventing CINV in the acute phase in patients receiving MEC. Intravenous palonosetron was superior to placebo in preventing PONV in the first 24 hours following surgery. Palonosetron was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. Intravenous palonosetron is a valuable option in the prevention of acute- and delayed-phase CINV in adult patients receiving MEC, and of acute-phase CINV in patients receiving HEC. Oral palonosetron is likely to be a useful addition to oral formulations of other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in preventing CINV in patients receiving MEC. Intravenous palonosetron is a useful alternative to currently recommended agents in PONV prevention.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Interactions; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient characteristics (female gender, younger age, low alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV.. This review provides a detailed description of palonosetron, a second generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist.. The chemistry and pharmacology of palonosetron are described, as well as the initial and recent clinical trials.. Palonosetron has a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than the first generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Palonosetron has been approved for the prevention of acute CINV in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for the prevention of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In recent studies, compared to the first generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone demonstrated better control of delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. There were no clinically relevant adverse reactions reported in the palonosetron clinical trials that were different from the common reactions reported for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist class. Due to its efficacy in controlling both acute and delayed CINV, palonosetron may be very effective in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Topics: Animals; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Only a few studies have investigated the effect of antiemetic therapy in patients treated with multiple-day or multiple cycles of chemotherapy. The present review will assess the available data, highlight the current recommendations and draw attention towards the remaining problems in this field of antiemetic treatment.. Evidence-based guidelines recommend a combination of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy. In patients treated with multiple cycles of chemotherapy the addition of a NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy has increased the antiemetic effect, and multiple cycle extension studies have demonstrated that this increment in effect is sustained during multiple cycles of chemotherapy. A recent study indicated that the dopamine D2-receptor antagonist metopimazine has some additive effect on delayed symptoms induced by multiple-day chemotherapy.. The development of the NK1-receptor antagonist aprepitant has significantly improved the antiemetic control in patients treated with multiple cycles of chemotherapy. Far too many patients still experience considerable emetic side effects. The effect of aprepitant in multiple-day chemotherapy has yet to be defined. The effect of new antiemetic agents such as palonosetron and olanzapine also needs to be investigated in randomized trials.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Benzodiazepines; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Dopamine D2 Receptor Antagonists; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Isonipecotic Acids; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting is a common problem for cancer patients. The emetogenic potential of radiation depends greatly on the location of the radiation field, the size of the radiation field, and the fractionation scheme. Radiation fields can be categorized as having high, moderate, low, or minimal emetogenic risk, and treatment differs accordingly. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology publish clinical practice guidelines addressing the issue of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting. This article reviews the treatment recommendations for each category of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting from these national and international guideline committees and provides the rationale for these recommendations.

Topics: Abdominal Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Dose Fractionation, Radiation; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quinuclidines; Radiotherapy; Serotonin Antagonists; Thoracic Neoplasms; Vomiting

Patients consider nausea and vomiting among the worst side effects of chemotherapy. This paper reviews the development of antiemetics during the past 12 years, focusing on the neurokinin (NK)1-receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and the new 5-HT3-receptor antagonist palonosetron. Evidence-based recommendations for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are given. Antiemetics are effective in prevention of vomiting, but less effective against nausea. Therefore studies with potential new antiemetics, such as olanzapine and ghrelin are awaited with suspense.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Benzodiazepines; Dexamethasone; Drug Interactions; Drug Therapy, Combination; Evidence-Based Medicine; Ghrelin; Glucocorticoids; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Peptide Hormones; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Diarrhea; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Risk; Serotonin Antagonists; Stomatitis; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a significant detriment to patient quality of life and a major impediment to successful delivery of chemotherapy. CINV is generally categorized in three phases: acute (0-24 hours post treatment), delayed (24-120 hours post treatment), and anticipatory. Two agents represents an important step forward in the clinician's ability to control CINV. Palonosetron, a serotonin-receptor antagonist, and aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, have both shown efficacy in combating emesis in the acute and delayed phases; since these two agents are of different drug classes, there is the potential for augmented antiemetic efficacy when the two are used together, as shown in a recent phase III trial. Challenges remain in the prevention of CINV, such as improved detection, the development of clinically useful assessment tools, and the revision of treatment guidelines.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Humans; Isoquinolines; Medical Oncology; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient risk factors (female gender, younger age, no alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have recently been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1) antagonists. There are a number of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and NK-1 receptor antagonists currently in Phase II and III clinical trials. Revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV are reviewed. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron and aprepitant with current and other new agents (olanzapine, gabapentin) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Aprepitant; Benzodiazepines; Brain; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Gastrointestinal Tract; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Neurokinin-1; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Vagus Nerve; Vomiting

Important progress in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis has been achieved but some fundamental needs still remain that requires new, efficacious antiemetic drugs.. A critical review of the results of published studies of aprepitant, a new NK1 receptor antagonist, and of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life.. Aprepitant combined with dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 antagonist significantly increased the control of acute emesis with respect to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 antagonist alone after cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. For cisplatin nausea, aprepitant combined with dexamethasone significantly increased the control of delayed emesis with respect to dexamethasone alone, while for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy aprepitant is superior to a 5-HT3 antagonist in the control of delayed emesis. Palonosetron showed superior or similar efficacy to ondansetron and dolasetron in patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and similar efficacy to ondansetron in patients submitted to cisplatin.. More studies are necessary comparing aprepitant alone or combined with dexamethasone with respect to the recommended antiemetic drugs for the prevention of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as well as for palonosetron combined with dexamethasone with respect to other 5-HT3 antagonists combined with dexamethasone.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Isoquinolines; Medical Oncology; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient risk factors (female gender, younger age, alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3 receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a clinical problem. A new agent, palonosetron, has recently been approved for the prevention of acute CINV in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for the prevention of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. In a single dosing study, palonosetron was highly effective in controlling CINV compared with a single dose of dolasetron or ondansetron in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone demonstrated control of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron appeared to be as effective in subsequent courses of chemotherapy compared with the initial course of chemotherapy. There were no clinically relevant differences seen among palonosetron, ondansetron or dolasetron in laboratory, electrocardiographic or vital-sign changes, and adverse reactions reported in the clinical trials were the most common reactions reported for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist class. Recent studies using palonosetron-based anti-emetic combinations in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy, have been reported. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron with current and other new agents and in other clinical settings, such as bone marrow transplantation and radiation therapy.

Topics: Age Factors; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dexamethasone; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Risk Factors; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Sex Factors

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most feared side effects of cancer treatment. With increasingly more complex chemotherapy treatments, CINV plays an important role in determining patients' quality of life, as well as when to halt potentially lifesaving therapy. Although significant progress has been made in the treatment of CINV, patients undergoing chemotherapy continue to report that this side effect is persistent and distressing. In 2003, two new agents were added to the armamentarium of antiemetic therapy. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved palonosetron, a longer-acting serotonin antagonist, and aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 antagonist and the first in a new class of antiemetics, for the treatment of CINV. Although the indications for both agents are similar, they have distinct differences. Decisions regarding placement of these agents into existing antiemetic protocols can be based on national guidelines, review of the literature, and clinical experience. This article will review current antiemetic therapy with an emphasis on the new additions to the treatment of CINV. Aprepitant and palonosetron represent significant changes in the treatment of CINV. Oncology nurses need to know current approaches to maximize effective antiemetic therapy.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Systemic treatment options in gastrointestinal malignancies have increased markedly. At the same time, the need for supportive measures has become more complex. Nausea and vomiting continue to impair the patients' quality of life and to jeopardise the goals of chemotherapy. Antiemetic strategies as proposed by treatment guidelines should be employed consistently in daily clinical practice. Deficits in cancer care exist in this area. In addition, newly available antiemetic drugs should be considered. Aprepitant is the first approved representative of a new drug class. Aprepitant inhibits substance P binding to the neurokinin-1-receptor. Given orally on the first three days of a cisplatin-based chemotherapy in combination with a standard antiemetic regimen, aprepitant proved to be significantly more effective in the prevention of nausea and vomiting compared to the standard regimen without aprepitant. Recently presented results for chemotherapy with moderate emetogenic risks indicate that aprepitant shows superior effectiveness even in this setting. Palonosetron is a new drug in the class of 5-HT (3) (serotonin) receptor antagonists. Compared to older setrones, palonosetron exhibits a higher receptor binding activity, a longer half life, and a slightly improved activity in the prevention of nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy with moderate emetogenic risks. The implementation of standardised treatment guidelines into clinical practice will contribute to a higher patient satisfaction and a more effective utilisation of economic resources.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Drug Therapy, Combination; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Premedication; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Significant progress has been made in the development of effective, convenient and well-tolerated means to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Nevertheless, a substantial minority of patients continue to have suboptimal antiemetic control, and additional treatment approaches are needed. One avenue of investigation being pursued involves the evaluation of a new 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist (palonosetron) that differs from available serotonin antagonists in its markedly longer half-life (40 h) and greater binding affinity for the type-3 serotonin receptor. Analysis of available clinical data demonstrates that palonosetron is an active and well-tolerated new 5-HT(3) antagonist. Moreover, single-dose palonosetron, prior to chemotherapy, has demonstrated improved control of CINV through the full period of emetic risk with a single dose. Palonosetron is recommended as the preferred treatment of acute and delayed emesis prevention with moderate emetic risk chemotherapy in the most recently published evidence-based antiemesis consensus guidelines. Further studies incorporating dexamethasone to 5-HT(3) antagonists will be necessary to determine the relative efficacy of palonosetron compared with available agents. These trials could open a new era in the treatment of CINV.

Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Drugs, Investigational; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Palonosetron is a potent and highly selective serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist that has been evaluated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. black triangle Intravenously administered palonosetron has a linear pharmacokinetic profile, with a long terminal elimination half-life ( approximate, equals 40 hours) and moderate (62%) plasma protein binding. In two randomised, double-blind trials in 1132 cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg was more effective than intravenous ondansetron 32 mg in producing a complete response (no emesis, no use of rescue medication) during acute (0-24 hours) or delayed (24-120 hours) phases, and similar to intravenous dolasetron 100 mg in acute, but more effective in delayed phase. Palonosetron 0.75 mg was similar to ondansetron (acute and delayed phase) or dolasetron (acute phase), but more effective than dolasetron in delayed phase. In patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (n = 667), the complete response rates during acute and delayed phases with intravenous palonosetron (0.25 or 0.75 mg) were similar to those seen in intravenous ondansetron 32 mg recipients in a randomised, double-blind trial. Intravenous palonosetron was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, with few adverse events being treatment related. Palonosetron had no significant effect on the corrected QT interval or laboratory parameters.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

First-generation serotonin receptor antagonists greatly improved the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the 1990s. A new class of agents, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, was introduced in March 2003 and produced even greater control of CINV when used in combination with a serotonin receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid. In July 2003, palonosetron, a new second-generation serotonin receptor antagonist that has greater potency and a longer half-life than first-generation serotonin receptor antagonists, was introduced. This clinical update reviews studies that were conducted to evaluate these new agents.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prognosis; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Despite the advance in supportive care that occurred with the introduction of selective serotonin subtype 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with first-generation agents (ondansetron, dolasetron, and granisetron) is less than ideal. Palonosetron is a unique 5-HT3 receptor antagonist whose distinctive pharmacologic characteristics (ie, high 5-HT3 receptor binding affinity, prolonged half-life) result in superior clinical benefit. Superiority of palonosetron over ondansetron and dolasetron in the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV has been observed in each phase III trial conducted. Of note, such evidence of superiority has never been seen in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration trials of other approved agents in this class. Recently approved by the FDA, palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously is indicated for the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of moderately and highly emetogenic cancer chemotherapy. Unlike other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, palonosetron is also indicated for prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of moderately emetogenic cancer chemotherapy. Palonosetron exhibits an excellent tolerability profile, with frequency, severity, and duration of adverse reactions similar to that of comparator agents. Unlike older agents that are considered therapeutically interchangeable at equipotent doses, palonosetron should be considered a clinically distinct and superior treatment for the prevention of CINV.

Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Dexamethasone; Female; Half-Life; Humans; Indoles; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Protein Binding; Quinolizines; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Eating; Humans; Lung; Nausea; Palonosetron; 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

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is particularly challenging for patients receiving highly emetogenic preparative regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) due to the daily and continuous emetogenic stimulus of the multiple day chemotherapy. While studies have shown effective prevention of CINV during the conditioning phase with NK. This multicenter, open-label, phase IIa study evaluated the efficacy of every-other-day dosing of NEPA administered during chemomobilization in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eighty-one patients participated.. Response rates were 77.8% for complete response (no emesis and no rescue use), 72.8% for complete control (complete response and no more than mild nausea), 86.4% for no emesis, and 82.7% for no rescue use during the overall phase (duration of chemomobilization through 48 h after). NEPA was well tolerated with no treatment-related adverse events reported.. NEPA, administered with a simplified every-other-day schedule, show to be very effective in preventing CINV in patients at high risk of CINV undergoing to chemomobilization of hematopoietic stem cells prior to ASCT.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Nausea; Palonosetron; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troublesome side-effect of chemotherapy in pediatric patients undergoing osteosarcoma treatment. In this context, the role of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists needs to be explored.. To evaluate the superiority of single-dose palonosetron over granisetron in pediatric patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for osteosarcoma.. In this double-blind, randomized study, pediatric patients were assessed in terms of acute nausea and vomiting following HEC for osteosarcoma. These children were assigned to group 1 (palonosetron) and group 2 (granisetron) without any other antiemetic prophylaxis. The primary outcome variable was the children's segment with a complete response (CR) during the acute phase of the 1st on-study chemotherapy cycle. The risk factors associated with the emesis were analyzed. The patients were followed up for the first 24 h after chemotherapy.. A total number of 200 children were evaluated in terms of the response, and other factors that might alter the response were assessed in the 2 groups. These 200 children underwent 604 blocks of chemotherapy. Complete responses were documented in 83% and 72% of children receiving palonosetron and granisetron, respectively, during the acute phase. Only dexamethasone, used as a rescue medication, was found to be a significant risk factor that predisposed to the response (p < 0.05).. Single-dose palonosetron is an effective alternative to granisetron for preventing CINV in children receiving HEC for osteosarcoma.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Dexamethasone; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Osteosarcoma; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE).. Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m. In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL.. Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin.. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04201769 . Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzeneacetamides; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Humans; Nausea; Palonosetron; Piperazines; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

The triplet antiemetic regimen is administered to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). However, the superiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists in triplet antiemetic therapy remains unclear. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) and granisetron (GRA) in triplet antiemetic therapy for CINV. This study included 267 patients who received MEC at our hospital between April 2017 and September 2020. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising PALO or GRA and dexamethasone on day 1 and aprepitant on days 1-3. We evaluated the rate of complete response (CR) (i.e., no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) in the acute phase (0-24 h), delayed phase (24-120 h), and overall phase (0-120 h) after first-cycle chemotherapy. Furthermore, multivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for non-CR. The rate of CR in the overall and delayed phases was significantly higher in the PALO group (91.9 and 91.9%, respectively) than in the GRA group (74.1 and 75.5%, respectively). In the acute phase, the incidence was not different between the GRA and PALO groups (96.5 and 99.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex and the use of GRA were risk factors for non-CR. Subgroup analysis revealed the superiority of PALO over GRA in female patients, but not in male patients. In conclusion, PALO was more effective than GRA in triplet antiemetic therapy in preventing CINV during MEC, especially for female patients.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

For the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the delayed phase (24-120 hours) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), the use of 3-day dexamethasone (DEX) is often recommended. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two DEX-sparing regimens with 3-day DEX, focusing on delayed nausea.. This open-label, randomized, phase III study was designed to demonstrate noninferiority of two DEX-sparing regimens: ondansetron + DEX on day 1 + metoclopramide on days 2-3 (MCP arm), and palonosetron + DEX on day 1 (PAL arm) versus ondansetron on day 1 + DEX on days 1-3 (DEX arm) in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving MEC. Primary efficacy endpoint was total control (TC; no emetic episodes, no use of rescue medication, no nausea) in the delayed phase. Noninferiority was defined as a lower 95% CI greater than the noninferiority margin set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included no vomiting, no rescue medication, no (significant) nausea, impact of CINV on quality of life, and antiemetics-associated side effects.. Treatment arms were comparable for 189 patients analyzed: predominantly male (55.7%), median age 65.0 years, colorectal cancer (85.7%), and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (81.5%). MCP demonstrated noninferiority to DEX for delayed TC (MCP 56.1% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -11.3%, 23.5%). PAL also demonstrated noninferiority to DEX (PAL 55.6% vs. DEX 50.0%; 95% CI, -12.0%, 23.2%). There were no statistically significant differences for all secondary endpoints between treatment arms.. This study showed that DEX-sparing regimens are noninferior to multiple-day DEX in terms of delayed TC rate in patients undergoing MEC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT02135510.. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) remains one of the most troublesome adverse effects associated with cancer treatment. In particular, delayed nausea is often poorly controlled. The role of dexamethasone (DEX) in the prevention of delayed nausea after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) is controversial. This study is the first to include nausea assessment as a part of the primary study outcome to better gauge the effectiveness of CINV control and patients' experience. Results show that a DEX-sparing strategy does not result in any significant loss of overall antiemetic control: DEX-sparing strategies incorporating palonosetron or multiple-day metoclopramide are safe and at least as effective as standard treatment with a 3-day DEX regimen with ondansetron in controlling delayed CINV-and nausea in particular-following MEC.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is not well controlled in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing oxaliplatin (L-OHP)-based chemotherapy. Whether neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist addition to a first-generation 5HT

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Colorectal Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Oxaliplatin; Palonosetron; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

No clinical trials have examined the effect of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) on chronic nausea in patients with cancer.. In this pilot randomized trial, we assessed the efficacy of NEPA and placebo on chronic nausea.. This double-blind, parallel, randomized trial enrolled patients with cancer and chronic nausea for at least 1 month, intensity ≥4/10 and not on moderately or highly emetogenic systemic therapies. Patients started with a placebo run-in period from days 1 to 5; those without a placebo response proceeded to the double-blinded phase between days 6 to 15 (NEPA: placebo 2:1 ratio). The primary outcome was within-group change in average nausea over the 24 hours on a 0-10 numeric rating scale between day 5 and 15.. Among the 53 enrolled patients, 46 proceeded to placebo run-in and 33 had blinded treatment (22 NEPA and 11 placebo). We observed a statistically significant within-group improvement in nausea numeric rating scale between day 5 and 15 in the NEPA group (mean change, -2.0; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.8) and the placebo group (mean change, -2.3; 95% CI, -3.9 to -0.7). A complete response was achieved in 8 (38%) patients in the NEPA group and 2 (20%) in the placebo group by day 15. No grade 3-4 toxicities were attributed to NEPA. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for the primary/secondary outcomes.. NEPA and placebo were associated with similar magnitude of within-group improvement in chronic nausea without significant between-group differences (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03040726).

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Pilot Projects; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is considered one of the most serious adverse events affecting chemotherapy-receiving cancer patients. It dramatically affects their food intake, nutritional status and more importantly their quality of life. We can observe CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) such as adriamycin-cyclophosphamide combination (AC) in breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other cancer types. This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of palonosetron (PALO) over granisetron (GRA) in combination with dexamethasone for multiple highly emetogenic chemotherapy drugs (HEC), especially in chemotherapy regimens in Egyptian breast cancer patients and cisplatin-based regimens in other diseases.. An open-label randomized trial was carried out, including 115 patients receiving at least four cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. All patients received dexamethasone in combination with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. We recorded patients' clinical and biochemical characteristics and withdraw blood samples to monitor serum substance P and serotonin in correlation with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We use the MASCC antiemetic tool in the acute phase (0-24 hr) and delayed phase (24-120 h) to evaluate patient outcomes in both stages after each chemotherapy cycle.. In (PALO) group, only 7.84% of patients showed acute vomiting, and 11.76% showed acute nausea, whereas 43.75% of patients showed acute vomiting and 89.06% showed acute nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). For delayed CINV, 23.53% of patients showed delayed vomiting, and 47.06% showed delayed nausea in the (PALO) group, while 82.81% of patients showed delayed emesis, and 92.19% showed delayed nausea in (GRA) group (P < 0.0001). The study showed that PALO is a cost-effective choice when compared to GRA in CINV prevention as 45.10% of patients in (PALO) required additional rescue medications (Domperidone 10 mg orally three times per day plus Trimebutine 200 mg orally three times per week both for 5 days), while 95.24% in the (GRA) group used the same medications. Adverse events of both antiemetic drugs (PALO and GRA) include headaches and constipation and QTc prolongation reports, mostly mild to moderate, with relatively low rates among the two groups.. Palonosetron, combined with dexamethasone, is more effective than granisetron and dexamethasone combination against both acute and delayed emesis induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) cisplatin-based protocols and the combination of cyclophosphamide and anthracyclines (AC). Medical team members should make more efforts, especially clinical pharmacy personnel, to monitor medications' effectiveness and help the medical team achieve a suitable and reliable care plan.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Doxorubicin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Egypt; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Vomiting

Palonosetron has demonstrated non-inferiority to ondansetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients in the United States and Europe. We conducted a single-arm registration study to evaluate the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of palonosetron in pediatric patients in Japan.. Key inclusion criteria were age of 28 days to 18 years and malignant disease for which initial highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was planned. Patients received palonosetron at 20 μg/kg over at least 30 s intravenously before the start of highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and received dexamethasone on Days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response in the overall phase (0-120 h) in Course 1, and its threshold was set at 30%.. From December 2016 to June 2019, 60 patients were enrolled, and 58 received at least one dose of palonosetron. The proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the overall phase was 58.6% (95% confidence interval, 44.9%-71.4%), showing the primary endpoint was met (P < 0.0001). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in two patients (3.4%). Regarding the pharmacokinetics of palonosetron, neither the plasma concentration immediately after administration nor the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity differed significantly among the age groups.. We demonstrated the efficacy of palonosetron in pediatric patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and confirmed the appropriateness of the 20 μg/kg dose, regardless of age, considering the safety and pharmacokinetic profiles.. JapicCTI-163305, registered 6 June 2016.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT. This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%.. Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant.. This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA.

Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Compared with older 5-HT. Patients were randomized to palonosetron (0.25 mg) every other day until the last dose of chemotherapy alone or with aprepitant on days 1-3. Patients mainly received an anthracycline on days 1-3 plus cytarabine administered for 5-10 days. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) over the whole study period (days of chemotherapy plus two additional days). Unplanned analysis of time to anti-emetic treatment failure (TTF) was also performed.. Of the 134 patients enrolled in the study, 130 were evaluable: 68 subjects received palonosetron plus aprepitant and 62 received palonosetron alone. Although the primary end point of CR was similar between the treatment arms (72% vs 69%; P = .55), a higher proportion of patients treated with palonosetron plus aprepitant were free from nausea during the whole study period (43% vs 27%; P = .03). There was also a significant difference in favor of the two-drug regimens in TTF (median: 5 days vs 3 days; P = .03).. The study suggests that every-other-day palonosetron plus 3-day aprepitant can add clinical benefit to the control of CINV caused by multiple-day, corticosteroid-free chemotherapy for AML. In this challenging setting of CINV, further investigations of palonosetron in combination with aprepitant administered with an expanded schedule are warranted. ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT02205164.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Cytarabine; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Treatment Failure; Vomiting; Young Adult

To investigate whether palonosetron is better than granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a three-drug combination with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant (Fos) in patients with breast cancer who are placed on anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC-based regimen).. Chemo-naive women with primary breast cancer were randomly administered either palonosetron 0.75 mg (day 1) or granisetron 1 mg (day 1) combined with dexamethasone (12 mg at day 1, 8 mg at day 2 and day 3) and Fos 150 mg (day 1) before receiving AC-based regimen in a double-blind study. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate of emesis in cycle 1 in the delayed phase. This was defined as neither vomiting nor rescue drug usage for emesis at >24-120 hours after chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute/overall phase (0-24/0-120 hours, respectively, after chemotherapy), no nausea and vomiting, Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and safety.. From December 2012 to October 2014, 326 patients were treated and evaluated (164/162 evaluable patients in granisetron/palonosetron arm, respectively). The CR during the delayed phase was 60.4% in the granisetron regimen and 62.3% in the palonosetron regimen. The CR during acute phase (73.2% vs 75.9%, respectively) and the CR during overall phase (54.9% in both regimens) were very identical. A significantly higher number of patients in the palonosetron arm were free from nausea during the delayed phase (28% vs 40.1%; P = .029). Adverse events were also identical, although infusion site reactions (ISR) were higher (20.3%-23.3%) than preceding studies in both regimens.. In combination with dexamethasone and Fos, this study suggests that palonosetron is not better than granisetron in chemo-naive patients with primary breast cancer receiving AC-based regimen. Administration of Fos in peripheral veins after AC-based regimen increased ISR.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Doxorubicin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epirubicin; Female; Fluorouracil; Granisetron; Humans; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Vomiting

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.. 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.. 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.. 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

Palonosetron (PALO) is one of the two active components of NEPA, the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (IV) and PALO. To increase the convenience of NEPA administration, especially for patients with swallowing difficulties, an IV NEPA formulation has been developed, where PALO is administered as a 30-minute infusion instead of the approved 30-second bolus.. To determine the efficacy and safety of the PALO component used in IV NEPA.. Noninferiority, double-blind, and randomized Phase 3 trial in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with cancer requiring highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive a single dose of PALO 0.25 mg administered IV either as a 30-minute infusion or as a 30-second bolus before highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of the 30-minute infusion vs. 30-second bolus in terms of complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute phase. Secondary efficacy endpoints were CR in the delayed and overall phases and no emesis and no rescue medication in all phases. Safety was a secondary endpoint.. Overall, 440 patients received study treatment. In the infusion group, 186 (82.7%) patients reported CR in the acute phase vs. 186 (86.5%) patients in the bolus group, demonstrating the noninferiority of PALO infusion vs. bolus (P < 0.001). Secondary endpoints showed similar results between the two treatment groups.. PALO 0.25-mg 30-minute IV infusion was noninferior to 30-second IV bolus in terms of CR rate in the acute phase. These results support the use of PALO 0.25 mg as a component of IV NEPA.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Nausea; Palonosetron; Vomiting

The 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (PALO) is approved (United States/Europe) as an oral formulation for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adult cancer patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for the acute phase only, in the United States, or as intravenous (IV) formulation in patients undergoing MEC or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. This phase III study compares the efficacy/safety of oral versus IV PALO in Chinese patients.. Chemotherapy-naive patients with solid tumours scheduled for MEC received oral PALO 0.50 mg or IV PALO 0.25 mg. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of patients with complete response in the acute phase (0-24 hr post-chemotherapy).. Complete response rates (acute phase), evaluated in 318/320 randomised patients, were 84.6% and 85.9% for oral and IV PALO respectively. Non-inferiority was demonstrated; the two formulations showed similar efficacy/safety.. Non-inferiority of oral versus IV PALO in the acute phase was demonstrated in Chinese patients.. CTR20140711.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma; China; Colorectal Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Stomach Neoplasms; Vomiting; Young Adult

Purpose We assessed the efficacy of palonosetron (PAL) in comparison to granisetron (GRA) for the treatment of CINV using the self-assessment questionnaires. In addition, we analyzed the serum levels of emetic various biomarkers. Methods We conducted a randomized study of 70 patients naïve to chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the late phase score on the MAT questionnaire. The plasma concentrations of the biomarkers were measured on days 1 and 3. Results There were no statistical differences in the scores on the questionnaires, but the mean values in response to PAL were higher than those in response to GRA. The value of ghrelin on day 1 was significantly higher for GRA than for PAL. Conclusions For the primary endpoint, the score of the late phase on the MAT questionnaire was not statistically different between the PAL and GRA treatment groups. Further studies are needed to clarify the role of ghrelin for the treatment of CINV. J. Med. Invest. 66 : 269-274, August, 2019.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Biomarkers; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Data on the efficacy of olanzapine in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) are limited. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of olanzapine versus placebo in controlling nausea and vomiting in patients receiving MEC.. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether olanzapine can reduce the frequency of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and improve the quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving palonosetron and dexamethasone as prophylaxis for MEC-induced nausea and vomiting. The primary end point was complete response for the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy). The secondary end points were complete response for the delayed (24-120 hours) and overall phase (0-120 hours), proportion of significant nausea (visual analogue scale ≥ 25 mm), use ofrescue medications, and effect on QOL.. Fifty-six patients were randomized to the olanzapine (n=29) and placebo (n=27) groups. Complete response rates were not significantly different between the olanzapine and placebo groups in the acute (96.5% vs. 88.0%, p=0.326), delayed (69.0% vs. 48.0%, p=0.118), and overall phases (69.0% vs. 48.0%, p=0.118). However, the percentage of patients with significant nausea (17.2% vs. 44.0%, p=0.032) and the use of rescue medications (0.03±0.19 vs. 1.88±2.88, p=0.002) were lower in the olanzapine group than in the placebo. Furthermore, the olanzapine group demonstrated better QOL (p=0.015).. Olanzapine combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved QOL and vomiting control among previously untreated patients receiving MEC, although the efficacy was limited to the reduction of the frequency of CINV.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome

Myeloablative chemotherapy administered prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) is associated with a significant amount of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We conducted a phase II trial to assess the safety, efficacy, and impact on quality of life when palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg combined with dexamethasone were given on the final or only day of myeloablative chemotherapy for auto-SCT. The primary end point of this study was the incidence of achieving a delayed CINV complete response defined as no emetic episode and no use of rescue medications during the 24-120 h period post chemotherapy. Eighty-five patients were enrolled in the study and received PAL. A delayed CINV complete response was achieved in 15% of patients. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no associated differences between age, gender, diagnosis, or regimen. By day 5 after PAL, the mean nausea severity was 0.91 ± 2.45 vs. 0.09 ± 1.58 at baseline (p = 0.012). Quality of life measurements demonstrated similar quality of life between baseline and day 3. By day 6 however, nausea alone had a statistically significant impact on quality of life. In our study, PAL controlled nausea severity and sustained quality of life, but further strategies are needed to control delayed CINV associated with the auto-SCT process.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myeloablative Agonists; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Transplantation Conditioning; Transplantation, Autologous; Vomiting; Young Adult

The triplet antiemetic regimen is recommended for cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy, in the current guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis. Although risk factors related to chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified by several prior studies, there are only few studies evaluating risk factors associated with the prophylactic triplet antiemetic therapy, particularly in palonosetron use. The present study aimed to reveal the risk factors related to CINV development in patients receiving cisplatin and to compare CINV risk factors between palonosetron and granisetron use.. In total, 825 patients in a phase III trial receiving palonosetron with graniestron were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to predict risk factors associated with CINV development. Additionally, risk factors associated with CINV development were separately evaluated in each treatment group.. Multivariate analysis of the entire study group revealed that sex, age, cisplatin dose, and granisetron use were significant and independent factors affecting CINV development in the overall phase. Similarly, sex and age were risk factors for CINV in both treatment groups. Kaplan-Meier curves classified by each treatment group showed no significant difference between the groups among patients without any risk factors for CINV (P = 0.353). Conversely, complete response rates for patients with at least one risk factor were higher in patients receiving palonosetron (P = 0.049).. This analysis revealed the importance of previously reported CINV risk factors when using triplet antiemetics. Palonosetron might be preferred for patients with at least one risk factor.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Japan; Logistic Models; Male; Middle Aged; Multivariate Analysis; Nausea; Palonosetron; Risk Factors; Vomiting

Netupitant is a novel, selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist used for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, a distressing side effect of chemotherapy. This double-blind, randomized, Phase II study investigated the dose-response of oral netupitant in Japanese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.. Chemotherapy-naïve patients were randomized (1:1:1) to a single oral netupitant 30-, 100- or 300-mg dose before chemotherapy initiation. Patients received concomitant palonosetron (0.75 mg intravenously [i.v.] Day 1) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg i.v. Day 1, 8 mg orally Days 2-4).. Overall, 402 patients (30 mg: 134; 100 mg: 135; 300 mg: 133) were treated and evaluable for efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint of overall (0-120 h after chemotherapy administration) complete response (CR) rate (no emesis, no rescue medication) was 64.2%, 60.0% and 54.9% in the 30-, 100- and 300-mg arms, respectively, without statistical significance for dose-response. The safety profile of netupitant was comparable in the three arms. The plasma concentrations of netupitant and its metabolites increased with the dose increase from 30 mg to 300 mg.. No dose-response relationship of netupitant in terms of overall CR rate was observed in this study. Netupitant was well tolerated at all doses without clinically harmful safety signals observed.. JapicCTI-142 483.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Amines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Emetics; Endpoint Determination; Female; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

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

Palonosetron (PG) is a newer, safe, and effective long-acting 5-HT3 antagonist commonly used in adults, but data in children are limited. A randomized controlled trial was carried out among children with cancer during their first cycle of moderate or highly emetogenic chemotherapy to receive either PG or ondansetron (OG) with the aim of comparing their efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. In total, 200 children (mean age, 8 y, male:female=1.8:1) were recruited, 100 in each arm. Complete response, defined as no vomiting, in acute (<24 h), delayed (24 to 120 h), and overall phases (0 to 120 h) was observed in 88%, 88%, and 81% of cases, respectively, for PG versus 84%, 79%, and 72%, respectively, for OG (P=0.42, 0.09 and 0.21, respectively). Complete protection rates, defined as no nausea and vomiting in children above 6 years of age, in acute, delayed, and overall phases were 84%, 81%, and 73%, respectively, for PG versus 79%, 67%, and 60%, respectively, for OG (P=0.44, 0.06 and 0.10, respectively). Overall, the efficacy and safety of PG in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was comparable with OG, but PG was a more cost-effective and suitable choice for busy centers in resource-limited countries.

Topics: Adolescent; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Male; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troublesome issue in chemotherapy for cancer patients. A second-generation 5HT. Chemotherapy-naïve lymphoma patients who were treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) received a single intravenous bolus of palonosetron, 0.75 mg/body, before chemotherapy on day 1 during the first course of chemotherapy. The occurrence of CINV was assessed using the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) antiemesis tool, which was recorded by patients during the first course of chemotherapy.. A total of 59 patients were enrolled, and 49 patients were eligible and evaluated. The complete response (CR) rate was 93.9% (95% confidence interval 83.1-98.7%) at 0-120 h post-chemotherapy. The proportion of patients who developed nausea of any grade and vomiting at 0-120 h post-chemotherapy was 34.7 and 6.1%, respectively. Although treatment-related adverse events were observed in 36 (73.5%) patients, these were mild and they recovered by the next cycle of chemotherapy.. The present study demonstrated that a single dose of palonosetron was highly effective and safe for the prevention of CINV in lymphoma patients.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children remains to be a major side effect despite antiemetic treatment. Palonosetron is a new generation 5-HT. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel controlled study was conducted in 0-18 years old cancer patients administered highly emetogenic chemotherapy, with different dosage of palonosetron or ondansetron, both followed by dexamethasone. The patients were observed for vomiting and nausea from 0 to 120 hr after chemotherapy initiation. All adverse events (AEs) during the study period were recorded. This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number ChiCTR-TRC-14004891.. Between August 2014 and July 2016, 565 patients were randomly assigned to receive 5 μg/kg palonosetron (n = 185), 10 μg/kg palonosetron (n = 186), and 3 × 150 μg/kg ondansetron (n = 194), of whom 181, 185, and 189, respectively, were included in the efficacy analysis. Complete response (CR) rates during the acute phase were 69.1, 69.7, and 64.6%, respectively, in the 5 μg/kg palonosetron, 10 μg/kg palonosetron, and ondansetron groups. In the delayed phase, 10 μg/kg palonosetron (CR, 53.5%) showed superiority to 5 μg/kg palonosetron (CR, 39.8%) and ondansetron (CR, 32.8%) groups (P < 0.05). The most frequently observed drug-related AEs were nervous system disorders, mainly headache, with an incidence of 2.8, 2.2, and 2.6% in each group, respectively.. Combination of palonosetron plus dexamethasone is highly effective in controlling acute and delayed CINV, with palonosetron superior to ondansetron.

Topics: Adolescent; Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Isoquinolines; Male; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy are at high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a distressing side effect of treatment. This post-hoc subgroup analysis of two pivotal trials evaluated the efficacy of NEPA in preventing CINV in subsets of patients with lung cancer who received cisplatin or carboplatin.. In each study, the efficacy endpoints complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) and no significant nausea (NSN; defined as a score of < 25 mm on a visual analog scale of 0-100 mm) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy in cycle 1 (study 1) and cycles 1-4 (study 2) were assessed. Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related AEs.. NEPA treatment resulted in high CR rates across the acute, delayed, and overall phases (cisplatin: > 88% overall CR; carboplatin: > 75% overall CR), with higher CR rates for NEPA-treated patients than those receiving palonosetron; moreover, CR rates were sustained over multiple chemotherapy cycles (> 75%). High rates of NSN observed during cycle 1 (> 79%) were also maintained over multiple chemotherapy cycles. NEPA was well tolerated in all patients.. NEPA appears to be effective and well tolerated in patients with lung cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, across the acute, delayed, and overall phases and throughout multiple cycles. As a highly effective oral combination antiemetic agent administered as a single dose once per cycle, NEPA may offer a convenient, simplified prophylactic antiemetic.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) causes significant morbidity among colorectal cancer patients, receiving fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin (FOLFOX) chemotherapy even with standard antiemetic prophylaxis. The purpose of this study is to determine if the addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy improves CINV in these patients.. Patients receiving FOLFOX for colorectal cancer were given antiemetic prophylaxis with aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Palonosetron 0.25 mg was given IV push on day 1 only. Dexamethasone 12 mg was administered orally on day 1 and 8 mg each morning on days 2 through 4. Assessments including emetic events, rescue doses, nutritional intake, and appetite were recorded in a patient diary which was returned to study personnel in the following cycle.. Of the 53 patients screened, 50 were evaluable and had a complete dataset for cycle 1. For the first cycle, 74% of patients achieved a complete response (CR), 22% achieved a major response and 4% experienced treatment failure. The percentage of patients achieving a CR remained high throughout each cycle at 83, 83, and 86% for cycles 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Appetite and nutritional status remained largely unchanged throughout treatment. Adverse events occurring in more than 10% of patients included diarrhea (13.6%), fatigue (12.6%), and neutropenia (11%).. Aprepitant added to standard antiemetic therapy appears to be an effective and safe regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving FOLFOX.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Colorectal Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Leucovorin; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Organoplatinum Compounds; Palonosetron; Pilot Projects; Vomiting

This study aimed to determine the antiemetic efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone in patients with testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs) receiving 5-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.. In this open-label, single-arm, single-centre study, the antiemetic therapy consisted of palonosetron 0.75 mg on day 1, aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-7 and dexamethasone 6.6 mg on days 1-7. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching or rescue medication) in the overall period (0-240 h), and secondary endpoints included complete protection (CP; defined as CR and no more than mild nausea) and total control (TC; defined as CR and no nausea). The incidence and severity of nausea were assessed on the basis of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 and a subjective rating scale completed by patients.. Twenty-five patients were enrolled and evaluated for safety, and 24 patients were evaluated for efficacy. CR was achieved in 62.5% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] = 40.6-81.2, p = 0.043) in the overall period. CP and TC were achieved in 62.5% (95% CI = 40.6-81.2) and 25.0% of patients (95% CI = 9.8-46.7), respectively, in the overall period. The primary adverse drug reaction was hiccups (48.0%). The events were expected, and none was grade 3 or 4.. The examined combination antiemetic therapy was effective and well-tolerated in patients with TGCTs receiving 5-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Vomiting; Young Adult

Chemotherapy-induced vomiting is a common adverse effect of cancer treatment. We assessed the non-inferiority of palonosetron versus ondansetron in prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting in children with cancer in 2-18 years of age.. In this single-center, open-label, randomized study, children receiving moderate and high emetogenic chemotherapy were assigned to get either ondansetron or palonosetron in addition to other antiemetic prophylaxis. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of children with complete response during the acute phase of the first on-study chemotherapy cycle. Non-inferiority was assessed by demonstration of lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for differences in complete response rates in palonosetron arm to be superior by - 15%. Risk factors for suboptimal response and the cost of administration of two drugs were also analyzed.. A total of 108 children were analyzed and various factors likely to influence response were equally distributed in two arms. These 108 patients received 412 blocks of chemotherapy. During the acute phase, complete responses were recorded in 72.2% (39/54) and 83.3% (45/54) receiving ondansetron and palonosetron, respectively (ΔCR + 11.1%). The lower limit of 97.5% confidence interval (- 6.95-28.39) for this difference was greater than - 15% in palonosetron arm. Only statistically significant risk factor that predisposed response was use of dexamethasone (p value < 0.01). The cost associated with ondansetron administration was significantly higher compared to palonosetron.. Palonosetron is non-inferior and cost-effective compared to ondansetron for prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) in children receiving moderate and high emetogenic chemotherapy.

Topics: Adolescent; Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Vomiting

NEPA, an oral fixed combination of the NK1RA netupitant (300 mg) and clinically/pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA palonosetron (PALO, 0.50 mg), is the first fixed antiemetic combination to have been approved. A single oral NEPA capsule plus dexamethasone (DEX) given before anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) showed superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) over PALO plus DEX for 5 days postchemotherapy. The safety of NEPA was well-established in the phase II/III clinical program in 1169 NEPA-treated patients. An intravenous (i.v.) formulation of the NEPA combination (fosnetupitant 235 mg plus PALO 0.25 mg) has been developed.. This randomized, multinational, double-blind, stratified (by sex and country) phase III study (NCT02517021) in chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors assessed the safety of a single dose of i.v. NEPA infused over 30 min before initial and repeated cycles of HEC. Patients received either i.v. NEPA or oral NEPA, both with oral DEX on days 1-4. Safety was assessed primarily by treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and electrocardiograms.. A total of 404 patients completed 1312 cycles. The incidence and type of treatment-emergent AEs were similar for both treatment groups with the majority of AEs as mild/moderate in intensity. There was no increased incidence of AEs in subsequent cycles in either group. The incidence of treatment-related AEs was similar and relatively low in both groups (12.8% i.v. NEPA and 11.4% oral NEPA during the entire study), with constipation being the most common (6.4% i.v. NEPA, 6.0% oral NEPA). No serious treatment-related AEs occurred in either group. No infusion site or anaphylactic reactions related to i.v. NEPA occurred. No clinically relevant changes in QTc and no cardiac safety concerns were observed.. Intravenous NEPA was well-tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA in patients with various solid tumors receiving HEC.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Prognosis; Pyridines; Survival Rate; Vomiting

To determine if a lower dose of dexamethasone can be used in combination with fosaprepitant and palonosetron for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in head and neck cancer patients, we conducted a single-center, two-arm, cross-over comparison study.. Patients were randomly assigned to either standard dose dexamethasone group: intravenous 9.9 mg on day 1 and 6.6 mg on days 2-4 or low-dose dexamethasone group: intravenous 3.3 mg on days 1-4 for the first course and crossed over to the other treatment for the second course. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) in the overall period.. Twenty-five patients were screened for the study and 22 were evaluable. Eleven patients were randomly assigned to the standard dose dexamethasone group and 12 patients to the low-dose dexamethasone group. The CR rate in the overall period was 86% in the standard dose group and 73% in the low-dose group, showing no significant difference (p = .61).. The efficacy of low-dose dexamethasone with fosaprepitant and palonosetron was not inferior to that of the standard dose dexamethasone in the highly emetogenic cisplatin-based treatment for head and neck cancer patients.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Vomiting

Palonosetron is effective for the management of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). While emetogenic carboplatin-based chemotherapy is widely used to treat gynecologic cancers, few studies have evaluated the antiemetic effectiveness of palonosetron in this setting.. A multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase II trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of palonosetron in controlling CINV in patients with gynecologic cancer. Chemotherapy-naïve patients received intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg/body) and dexamethasone before the infusion of carboplatin-based chemotherapy on day 1. Dexamethasone was administered (orally or intravenously) on days 2-3. The incidence and severity of CINV were evaluated using the patient-completed Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool and treatment diaries. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing complete control (CC) of vomiting, with "no rescue antiemetic medication" and "no clinically significant nausea" or "only mild nausea" in the delayed phase (24-120 hours post-chemotherapy). Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR: "no vomiting" and "no rescue antiemetic medication") in the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (24-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) phases, and CC in the acute and overall phases.. Efficacy was assessable in 77 of 80 patients recruited. In the acute and delayed phases, the CR rates the primary endpoint, were 71.4% and 59.7% and the CC rates, the secondary endpoint, were 97.4% and 96.1%, respectively.. While palonosetron effectively controls acute CINV, additional antiemetic management is warranted in the delayed phase after carboplatin-based chemotherapy in gynecologic cancer patients (Trial registry at UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000012806).

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Severity of Illness Index; Vomiting

Real-world palonosetron effectiveness was evaluated in an antiemetic regimen with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).. In this Phase IV, prospective, multicenter observational study, HEC-treated cancer patients received palonosetron, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone. Primary objective was to assess complete response (CR) for acute (≤24 h), delayed and overall (≤120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.. Of 159 patients, 65.4% had breast cancer, 64.8% received anthracycline (doxorubicin)-plus-cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy; 155 completed one HEC cycle. CR was 60.0% acute, 39.4% delayed and 34.8% overall, and then increased (all phases) in 69 patients completing four HEC cycles. Anthracycline (doxorubicin) plus cyclophosphamide-receiving patients had especially low CR.. Even within a recommended three-drug antiemetic regimen, palonosetron may provide suboptimal chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control with HEC in real-world settings.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Doxorubicin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

To investigate across multiple cycles the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC).. Patients were randomly assigned to 10, 20 μg/kg palonosetron or 3 × 150 μg/kg ondansetron for up to four cycles of HEC/MEC.. In all on-study chemotherapy cycles, complete response rates were higher in patients in the 20 μg/kg palonosetron group than the ondansetron group. Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between the palonosetron 20 μg/kg and ondansetron groups.. Over four cycles of HEC/MEC, 20 μg/kg palonosetron was an efficacious and safe treatment for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients.

Topics: Adolescent; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. However, standard antiemetic therapy is not completely effective in all patients.. We conducted an open-label, single-center, single-arm Phase II study to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine in combination with standard antiemetic therapy in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with thoracic malignancy receiving their first cycle of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Patients received 5 mg oral olanzapine on Days 1-5 in combination with standard antiemetic therapy. The primary endpoint was complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) during the overall Phase (0-120 h post-chemotherapy).. Twenty-three men and seven women were enrolled between May and October 2015. The median age was 64 years (range: 36-75 years). The most common chemotherapy regimen was 75 mg/m2 cisplatin and 500 mg/m2 pemetrexed, which was administered to 14 patients. Complete response rates in acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy), delayed (24-120 h post-chemotherapy) and overall phases were 100%, 83% and 83% (90% confidence interval: 70-92%; 95% confidence interval: 66-93%), respectively. There were no Grade 3 or Grade 4 adverse events. Although four patients (13%) experienced Grade 1 somnolence, no patients discontinued olanzapine.. The addition of 5 mg oral olanzapine to standard antiemetic therapy demonstrates promising efficacy in preventing cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and an acceptable safety profile in patients with thoracic malignancy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Benzodiazepines; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Thoracic Neoplasms; Vomiting

Purpose We examined the efficacy and safety of thalidomide (THD) for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients and Methods In a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive HEC that contained cisplatin or cyclophosphamide-doxorubicin/epirubincin ≥ 50 mg/m

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Doxorubicin; Epirubicin; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Thalidomide; Vomiting; Young Adult

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequently encountered side effects of cancer treatment. Severe CINV can lead patients to refuse chemotherapy, which ultimately affects cancer outcomes. The development of fairly new antiemetic agents, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists, palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists and aprepitant has reduced the risk and incidence of CINV. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of aprepitant plus palonosetron against palonosetron for CINV in patients receiving moderately emetic cancer chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin combination [TC] therapy).. Between November 2010 and March 2014, 78 patients with gynecological cancer treated with TC therapy were randomized into two groups: an aprepitant group (administered aprepitant, dexamethasone and palonosetron) and a control group (administered dexamethasone and palonosetron). The primary study endpoint was complete response, defined as the complete absence of emetic events in the delayed phase.. The complete response rate in the delayed phase differed significantly between the two groups, with 82% in the aprepitant group and 97% in the control group (P = 0.025).. The combination of aprepitant and palonosetron appears to be of greater efficacy than palonosetron alone for the prevention of delayed-phase CINV induced by TC therapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Carboplatin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Paclitaxel; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

To evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in oral cancer patients.. Oral cancer patients receiving HEC were enrolled; among the 40 patients, 87 courses of chemotherapy were administered. On day 1, 0.75 mg palonosetron was intravenously administrated just before chemotherapy.. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR) and the secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete control (CC) during the acute and delayed phase. During the acute phase, 86 of 87 courses (98.9%) had CR and 84 of 87 courses (96.6%) had CC. During the delayed phase, 84 of 87 courses (96.6%) had CR and 70 of 87 courses (80.5%) had CC.. Palonosetron is effective at preventing HEC-induced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in oral cancer chemotherapeutic regimens in the acute and delayed phases.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Mouth Neoplasms; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced and radiotherapy-induced emesis is recommended by several guidelines; however, there are no evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics in concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron and dexamethasone during CCRT.. This is a nonrandomized, prospective, single-center, open phase II study.Twenty-six consecutive patients with cervical carcinoma were treated with daily low-dose cisplatin (8 mg/m/d)-based CCRT (2 Gy/d, 25 fractions, 5 times a week). All patients received 0.75 mg of palonosetron on day 1 of each week and 4 mg of oral dexamethasone daily. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a complete response, which was defined as no emetic episodes and no antiemetic rescue medication during treatment.. Planned daily low-dose cisplatin-based CCRT was successful without delay or interruption in 46% (12/26) of the patients. The mean dose of total cisplatin was 184 (range, 136 to 200) mg/m.No patient vomited during the treatment period. The complete response rate during CCRT was 100%. A total of 81% patients were completely free from nausea. All patients tolerated the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone and completed the scheduled regimen. Five patients exhibited grade 1 Cushingoid features that resolved after treatment.. Antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron and dexamethasone provided complete protection from nausea and vomiting in patients with cervical cancer receiving daily low-dose cisplatin-based CCRT.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Chemoradiotherapy; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vomiting

Even with the use of modern antiemetic drugs, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still a cause of great distress to the patients. Olanzapine, primarily marketed as an antipsychotic, was found to reduce nausea and vomiting in some chemotherapy patients. But it was never tested in Indian population with a diverse genetic background. The present study aims to evaluate the role of olanzapine in CINV in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy.. The study was a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded study on 100 chemotherapy-naïve consenting patients receiving any one from cisplatin, carboplatin or oxaliplatin. The control group (n = 50) received palonosetron and dexamethasone in the approved therapeutic dose from the day 1 of chemotherapy. The test group (n = 50) received additional olanzapine 10 mg/day from day 1 for five consecutive days. CINV and quality of life (QoL) were assessed.. Vomiting was significantly less among the olanzapine-treated patients. Control of delayed emesis was significantly better in this group (complete response among 96 vs. 42 % in the control group, p value <0.0001). Incidence and severity of nausea was significantly less in this group. Failure of anti-CINV measure was 4 % in this group compared to 26 % of the patients of the control group during overall days 1-5. Though sedation was more in these olanzapine-treated patients, there was no dose-limiting adverse event. Quality of life was also better among the olanzapine-treated patients.. Olanzapine was found to be effective as add-on in the control of CINV.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzodiazepines; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Olanzapine; Organoplatinum Compounds; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; 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

This study is a multinational, double-blind study comparing a single oral dose of NEPA vs oral PALO in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy along with dexamethasone 12 mg (NEPA) or 20 mg (PALO) on day 1. The primary efficacy endpoint was delayed (25-120 h) complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the multicycle extension by calculating the proportion of patients with overall (0-120 h) CR in cycles 2-4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles.. Of 1455 patients randomized, 1286 (88 %) participated in the multiple-cycle extension for a total of 5969 cycles; 76 % completed ≥4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was significantly greater for NEPA than oral PALO for cycles 1-4 (74.3 vs 66.6 %, 80.3 vs 66.7 %, 83.8 vs 70.3 %, and 83.8 vs 74.6 %, respectively; p ≤ 0.001 each cycle). The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over all 4 cycles was also greater for NEPA (p < 0.0001). NEPA was well tolerated over cycles.. NEPA, a convenient, guideline-consistent, fixed antiemetic combination is effective and safe over multiple cycles of chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting; Young Adult

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting adversely affects the quality of life of patients who receive chemotherapy via intravenous infusion or transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to investigate the clinical effects of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) on nausea and vomiting after TACE.. A total of 142 patients who received TACE with cisplatin for primary or metastatic liver cancer were assigned to the active-acupuncture (n = 72) or placebo-acupuncture (n = 70) groups using a covariate-adaptive randomization at a ratio of 1:1. The acupoints Hegu (LI4), Neiguan (P6), and Zusanli (ST36) were stimulated twice daily for 6 days. The effects of TEAS on nausea and vomiting were assessed by using occurrence rate and severity of these symptoms. Anorexia scale and M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) scores were secondary endpoints and were used to assess the effect of TEAS on patient appetite and quality of life. The safety of the treatments was also monitored.. Between the two groups, the differences in occurrence rates and severities of nausea and vomiting after TACE were not significant (all P > 0.05). From the second day after TACE, anorexia scores were significantly lower in the active-acupuncture group than in the placebo-acupuncture group and continued to decrease over time with treatment (all P values less than 0.01). On days 0, 1, and 2, the mean MDASI scores for the active-acupuncture group were slightly lower than those for the placebo-acupuncture group, but the differences were not statistically significant (all P > 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in the occurrence rate of any adverse event (P > 0.05).. TEAS appears to be a safe and effective therapy to relieve patients' gastrointestinal discomfort after chemotherapy. Trial registration NCT01895010. Registered 21 June 2013.

Topics: Acupuncture Points; Adult; Aged; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Cisplatin; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Severity of Illness Index; Single-Blind Method; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Olanzapine is effective in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). In patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), its efficacy was reported as rescue therapy for breakthrough emesis refractory to triplet therapy (palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone). However, its preventive effects with triplet therapy for CINV are unknown. This study aimed to investigate efficacy and safety of preventive use of olanzapine with triplet therapy for CINV of HEC.. This study is a prospective multicenter study conducted by Kansai Clinical Oncology Group. Forty chemo-naïve gynecological cancer patients receiving HEC with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m(2)) were enrolled. Oral olanzapine (5 mg) was administered with triplet therapy a day prior to cisplatin administration and on days 1-5. The primary endpoint was complete response (no vomiting and no rescue) rate for the overall phase (0-120 h post-chemotherapy). Secondary endpoints were complete response rate for acute phase (0-24 h post-chemotherapy) and delayed phase (24-120 h post-chemotherapy) and complete control (no vomiting, no rescue, and no significant nausea) rate and total control (no vomiting, no rescue, and no nausea) rate for each phase. These endpoints were evaluated during the first cycle of chemotherapy.. Complete response rates for acute, delayed, and overall phases were 97.5, 95.0, and 92.5 %, respectively. Complete control rates were 92.5, 87.5, and 82.5 %, respectively. Total control rates were 87.5, 67.5, and 67.5 %, respectively. There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events.. Preventive use of olanzapine combined with triplet therapy gives better results than those from previously reported studies of triplet therapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Benzodiazepines; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Palonosetron is the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) that has shown better efficacy than the first-generation 5-HT3RA for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS), a novel transdermal formulation, was developed to deliver granisetron continuously over 7 days. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the GTDS to palonosetron for the control of CINV following MEC.. A total of 196 patients were randomized to GP or PG group. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, cross-over, active-controlled, Phase IV study, GP group was assigned to receive transdermal granisetron (one GTDS patch, 7 days) in the first chemotherapy cycle, palonosetron (iv 0.25 mg/day, 1 days) in the second chemotherapy cycle before receiving MEC, and PG group was assigned to receive palonosetron in the first cycle and GTDS in the second cycle. Primary endpoint was the percentage of chemotherapy cycles achieving complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) during the acute phase (0-24 h in post-chemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with palonosetron).. Total 333 cycles (165 in GTDS and 168 in palonosetron) were included in the per protocol analysis. The GTDS cycles showed non-inferiority to palonosetron cycles during the acute phase: CR was achieved by 124 (75.2 %) patients in the GTDS cycles and 134 (79.8 %) patients in the palonosetron cycles (treatment difference, -4.6 %; 95 % confidence interval, -13.6-4.4). There was no significant difference in CR rate during acute phase after the end of the first and second chemotherapy cycle between GP and PG group (p = 0.405, p = 0.074). Patients' satisfaction, assessed using Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLI-E), GTDS cycle were higher than those of palonosetron cycle in GP group (FLI-E score; median 1549.5 in GTDS cycle, median 1670.0 in palonosetron cycle). Both treatments were well tolerated and safe.. Transdermal granisetron is a good alternative therapeutic option to palonosetron for preventing CINV after MEC.

Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Patient Satisfaction; Quinuclidines; Remission Induction; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Dexamethasone, plus a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and an NK-1 receptor antagonist are recommended for controlling the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Several days of dexamethasone are effective for CINV; however, dexamethasone also has side effects. The purpose of this trial was to investigate whether the use of a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and an NK-1 receptor antagonist could allow a reduced dose of dexamethasone for breast cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.. Eighty breast cancer patients who received an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination regimen were enrolled. The patients were randomized to arm A (dexamethasone days 1-3) and arm B (dexamethasone day 1). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). The secondary endpoints were the CR during the delayed phase (days 2-5), complete control (CC) (no emetic episodes, no rescue medication, and no more than mild nausea) during the overall phase, and the safety of this antiemetic therapy.. There were no significant differences in the rates of CR and CC between arm A and B as follows: CR overall phase--arm A: 82.9%, 90% confidence interval [CI] 71.3-90.5% vs arm B: 82.1%, 90% CI 70.0-90.0%; p = 1.00; CR delayed phase--arm A: 87.8%, 90% CI 77.0-93.9% vs arm B: 94.9%, 90% CI 85.6-98.3%; p = 0.43; CC overall phase--arm A: 48.8%, 90% CI 36.4-61.3% vs arm B: 61.5%, 90% CI 48.4-73.2%; p = 0.27. There were very few adverse events and no severe adverse events associated with this antiemetic therapy.. The results suggest that the antiemetic effect provided by dexamethasone administered for 3 days can be obtained by dexamethasone administered for 1 day.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Breast Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Japan; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

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

APF530 provides controlled, sustained-release granisetron for preventing acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). In a phase III trial, APF530 was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV following single-dose moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and delayed CINV in MEC (MEC and HEC defined by Hesketh criteria). This exploratory subanalysis was conducted in the breast cancer subpopulation.. Patients were randomized to subcutaneous APF530 250 or 500 mg (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg during cycle 1. Palonosetron patients were randomized to APF530 for cycles 2 to 4. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR, no emesis or rescue medication) in cycle 1.. Among breast cancer patients (n = 423 MEC, n = 185 HEC), > 70 % received anthracycline-containing regimens in each emetogenicity subgroup. There were no significant between-group differences in CRs in cycle 1 for acute (APF530 250 mg: MEC 71 %, HEC 77 %; 500 mg: MEC 73 %, HEC 73 %; palonosetron: MEC 68 %, HEC 66 %) and delayed (APF530 250 mg: MEC 46 %, HEC 58 %; 500 mg: MEC 48 %, HEC 63 %; palonosetron: MEC 52 %, HEC 52 %) CINV. There were no significant differences in within-cycle CRs between APF530 doses for acute and delayed CINV in MEC or HEC in cycles 2 to 4; CRs trended higher in later cycles, with no notable differences in adverse events between breast cancer and overall populations.. APF530 effectively prevented acute and delayed CINV over 4 chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving MEC or HEC.. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00343460 (June 22, 2006).

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Nausea; 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

To investigate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for patients receiving cisplatin (≥50 mg/m(2) ), because this antiemetic therapy has not been sufficiently examined in patients receiving cisplatin.. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for chemotherapy naïve patients receiving cisplatin (≥50 mg/m(2) ). Patients received prophylactic dexamethasone (20 mg IV, day 1), palonosetron (0.75 mg IV, day 1), and olanzapine (10 mg, days 1-4). The patients were monitored for emesis and nausea for 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate, which was defined as no vomiting episodes and no use of rescue medication for the overall period. CR rates of 65% and 45% would indicate the potential usefulness and the lower limit of interest, respectively.. Fifty-one patients, including 37 esophageal cancer patients were enrolled, of whom 41 (80%) completed the treatment protocol as planned. The complete response rate for the overall period was 43% (95% confidence interval: 29-58); the primary endpoint was not met. Vomiting was frequently observed, with the overall rate of 51%. Most events occurred during 24-72 h after chemotherapy. Somnolence was observed in 73% of the patients, but it was well tolerated in most cases.. Olanzapine combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone did not prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin as expected. The safety of this antiemetic therapy was confirmed.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

In a comparative phase 3 study involving 1114 Japanese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), palonosetron (PALO) was found to be superior to granisetron (GRA) for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase. This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy of PALO for the control of nausea.. The proportion of patients without nausea was assessed at 24-h intervals during the acute phase (0-24 h), delayed phase (24-120 h), and overall (0-120 h). No nausea rates were also evaluated by sex, type of chemotherapy (cisplatin or doxorubicin/epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide [AC/EC]), and age (<55 vs. ≥55 years). Nausea severity was categorized using a 4-point Likert scale (0 = no nausea to 3 = severe nausea).. The proportion of patients without nausea was significantly higher in the PALO arm than in the GRA arm in the delayed phase (37.8 % vs. 27.2 %; p = 0.002) and overall (31.9 % vs. 25.0 %; p = 0.0117). When analyzed by stratification factors, the proportion of patients without nausea was significantly higher in the PALO arm in the delayed phase and overall in patients who were female, younger, or treated with cisplatin and in the delayed phase in patients who were older or treated with doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (all p < 0.05).. PALO was more effective than GRA in prophylaxis of HEC-induced nausea in the delayed phase and overall. In addition, PALO was more effective than GRA in young and female patients, who are at high risk of CINV, both in the delayed phase and overall.

Topics: Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

We conducted a randomized trial to compare the safety and effectiveness of aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone (AGD) with those of palonosetron and dexamethasone (PD) in patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients with esophageal or gastric cancer who were scheduled to receive HEC including at least 60 mg/m of cisplatin as the first-line treatment were randomly assigned to receive AGD (oral aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-3; intravenous granisetron 3 mg on day 1; intravenous dexamethasone 6.6 mg on day 1 and oral dexamethasone 4 mg on days 2-3) or PD (intravenous palonosetron 0.75 mg on day 1; intravenous dexamethasone 13.2 mg on day 1 and oral dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2-3). The primary endpoint was a complete response during the overall study period (0-120 h after the start of chemotherapy) in the first cycle. Eighty-five patients were enrolled, and 84 were eligible. The complete response rate did not differ between the treatment groups, but the proportion of patients with no vomiting was significantly higher in the AGD group than in the PD group (81.4 vs. 58.5%; P=0.031). The results of a quality-of-life survey indicated that the proportion of patients with no or minimal impact on daily life in the vomiting domain was significantly higher in the AGD group (79.1 vs. 53.7%; P=0.020). The primary endpoint of complete response was not achieved, but AGD seems to be more effective than PD for the prevention of HEC-induced vomiting.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Cross-Over Studies; Dexamethasone; Esophageal Neoplasms; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Stomach Neoplasms; Vomiting

Antiemetic recommendations during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT)) have not been established yet. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of palonosetron plus aprepitant, without routine use of dexamethasone, could alleviate chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CRINV).. This was a non-randomized, prospective, single-center, open phase II study. Patients with cervical cancer, who were treated with daily low-dose cisplatin (8 mg/m(2)/day) and concurrent radiation (2 Gy/day, 25 fractions, five times a week), were enrolled in this study. All patients received intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg on day 1 of each week) and oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3 of each week). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a complete response, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of antiemetic rescue medication during the treatment.. Twenty-seven patients (median age, 50 years; range, 33-72 years) were enrolled in this study between June 2013 and April 2014. A total of 13 (48 %) patients showed a complete response to the antiemetic regimen, while 8 patients (30 %) had emetic episodes and 6 patients (22 %) used rescue medication without emetic episodes. No severe adverse effects caused by palonosetron plus aprepitant were observed.. The combination of palonosetron plus aprepitant was permissive for the prevention of CRINV. This regimen should be considered for patients in whom dexamethasone is contraindicated or not well tolerated.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aprepitant; Chemoradiotherapy; Cisplatin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; 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

To identify strategies for reducing emesis induced by the CHOP regimen, which includes high-dose steroids, we prospectively evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron in Japanese patients. Palonosetron was administered at a dose of 0.75 mg via intravenous injection over 30 min before chemotherapy on day 1. Patients kept diaries of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) incidence from the start of chemotherapy until 168 h afterwards, in which they documented the occurrence and severity of nausea, vomiting, anorexia, and the use of rescue medication. The primary endpoint was the overall occurrence rate of nausea, vomiting, and anorexia; these rates were 56, 12, and 62 %, respectively, including all grades. The rates and severity of symptoms tended to worsen 120-168 h after completing oral prednisolone. We defined complete response (CR) as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy. The CR rates of post palonosetron 0.75 mg treatment in the acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-168 h), and overall phases (0-168 h) were 86, 66, and 62 %, respectively. Antiemetic strategies of CHOP regimen for day 6 and, thereafter, should be investigated.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Japan; Lymphoma; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prednisolone; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vincristine; Vomiting; Young Adult

The purpose of the study is to investigate the usefulness of the triplet regimen comprising aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone in patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).. Patients with lung cancer (aged 65.8 ± 8.4 years) who received carboplatin-based MEC and those treated with cisplatin-based HEC were enrolled. The antiemetic regimen for both types of chemotherapy consisted of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone based on the May 2010 guidelines prepared by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology. The incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and the use of salvage treatment were assessed. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients with a complete response (CR: no nausea and no salvage treatment) during the entire study period (5 days) after chemotherapy, during the acute phase (day 1), and during the delayed phase (days 2-5).. CR rates for the entire period were 86 and 71% in patients receiving carboplatin-based and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively. CR rates were respectively 98 and 100% in the acute phase versus 87 and 71% in the delayed phase. Most of the patients could ingest food throughout the entire period after chemotherapy. Assessment of various risk factors for acute and delayed CINV (gender, age, prior vomiting due to antineoplastic therapy, prior experience of motion sickness, and history of drinking) revealed no significant influence of these factors on the CR rate for the entire period in patients receiving either carboplatin-based or cisplatin-based chemotherapy.. The present triple therapy can be recommended for supporting both carboplatin-based and cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimens.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Carboplatin; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Japan; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Salvage Therapy; Surveys and Questionnaires; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Subcutaneous APF530 provides controlled sustained release of granisetron to prevent acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial compared APF530 and palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).. Patients receiving single-day MEC or HEC received single-dose APF530 250 or 500 mg subcutaneously (SC) (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg. Primary objectives were to establish APF530 noninferiority to palonosetron for preventing acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC and to determine APF530 superiority to palonosetron for preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR [using CI difference for APF530-palonosetron]). A lower confidence bound greater than -15 % indicated noninferiority.. In the modified intent-to-treat population (MEC = 634; HEC = 707), both APF530 doses were noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV after MEC (CRs 74.8 % [-9.8, 9.3] and 76.9 % [-7.5, 11.4], respectively, vs. 75.0 % palonosetron) and after HEC (CRs 77.7 % [-11.5, 5.5] and 81.3 % [-7.7, 8.7], respectively, vs. 80.7 % palonosetron). APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV after MEC (CR 58.5 % [-9.5, 12.1] vs. 57.2 % palonosetron) but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Adverse events were generally mild and unrelated to treatment, the most common (excluding injection-site reactions) being constipation.. A single subcutaneous APF530 injection offers a convenient alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Delayed-Action Preparations; Double-Blind Method; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The first aim of this study was to evaluate combination antiemetic therapy consisting of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs), and dexamethasone for multiple high emetogenic risk (HER) anticancer agents in bone and soft tissue sarcoma. The second aim was to compare the effectiveness of single-shot palonosetron and consecutive-day granisetron in a randomized, single-blinded crossover study. A single randomization method was used to assign eligible patients to the palonosetron or granisetron arm. Patients in the palonosetron arm received a palonosetron regimen during the first and third chemotherapy courses and a granisetron regimen during the second and fourth courses. All patients received NK-1RA and dexamethasone. Patients receiving the palonosetron regimen were administered 0.75 mg palonosetron on day 1, and patients receiving the granisetron regimen were administered 3 mg granisetron twice daily on days 1 through 5. All 24 patients in this study received at least 4 chemotherapy courses. A total of 96 courses of antiemetic therapy were evaluated. Overall, the complete response CR rate (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) was 34%, while the total control rate (a CR plus no nausea) was 7%. No significant differences were observed between single-shot palonosetron and consecutive-day granisetron. Antiemetic therapy with a 3-drug combination was not sufficient to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during chemotherapy with multiple HER agents for bone and soft tissue sarcoma. This study also demonstrated that consecutive-day granisetron was not inferior to single-shot palonosetron for treating CINV.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Bone Neoplasms; Cross-Over Studies; Dexamethasone; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Sarcoma; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Young Adult

The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a three-drug antiemetic prophylaxis in a single-center series treated with anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide-based regimen for BC. We collected data from 92 consecutive patients treated with routine antiemetic prophylaxis consisted of aprepitant (oral 125 mg, on day 1; oral 80 mg, on days 2 and 3), a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (palonosetron iv 0.25 mg, on day 1), and dexamethasone (iv 12 mg, on day 1). Acute and delayed phases were defined as the first 24 h and days 2-5 after treatment, respectively. Therapy outcomes were defined as complete response (CR), in case of no vomiting, no rescue treatment; complete protection (CP), in case of no vomiting, no rescue treatment, no significant nausea; and total control (TC), in case of no vomiting, no rescue treatment, no nausea. Overall, 89.1 and 81.5% of patients showed CR in acute and delayed phase, respectively; 67.4 and 62% showed CP in acute and delayed phase, respectively; and 52.2 and 48.9% of patients showed TC in acute and delayed phase, respectively. 4.3% complained an episode of emesis during the first 24 h from treatment, while in delayed phase, only 2.2% of patients had vomiting. Our analysis confirmed that a three-drug prophylaxis is safe, effective, and consequently highly recommended in patients who undergo anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide-based regimens, though still not classified as highly emetogenic chemotherapy by all the international guidelines.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Breast Neoplasms; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of oral palonosetron with intravenous (IV) palonosetron for the prevention of cisplatin-related chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).. A multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolling adult chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant solid tumors scheduled to receive cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients received oral palonosetron (0.50 mg) or IV palonosetron (0.25 mg), each with oral dexamethasone. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of patients with a complete response (CR, no emesis/no rescue medication) within the acute phase (0-24 h after chemotherapy administration).. Of the 743 patients randomized, 739 received study medications and 738 were included in the full analysis set. The CR rate in the acute phase was high for both groups (oral 89.4 %; IV 86.2 %). As this difference in proportions (stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method) was 3.21 % (99 % confidence interval (CI) -2.74 to 9.17 %), non-inferiority was demonstrated (since the lower limit of the 99 % CI was closer to zero than the predefined margin of 15 %). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to the study drug were rare (oral 3.2 %; IV 6.5 %). No TEAEs related to study drug leading to discontinuation were reported.. Non-inferiority of oral versus IV palonosetron was demonstrated. The CR rate in the acute phase was >86 % in both patient groups. The safety profiles were comparable.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Antiemetics; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

A combination of aprepitant, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (r.a.), and dexamethasone is recommended for the prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in the acute phase, and aprepitant + dexamethasone (A + D) in the delayed phase. The aim of this study was to verify if A + D is superior to metoclopramide plus dexamethasone (M + D) in preventing delayed emesis in cancer patients receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis.. A randomized double-blind study comparing A + D versus M + D was completed in previously untreated cancer patients. Before chemotherapy, all patients were treated with intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg and dexamethasone 12 mg, and oral aprepitant 125 mg. On day 2-4, patients randomly received oral dexamethasone 8 mg plus aprepitant 80 mg once daily (days 2-3) or metoclopramide 20 mg four times daily plus dexamethasone 8 mg bid. Primary endpoint was rate of complete response (no vomiting, no rescue treatment) in day 2-5 after chemotherapy.. Due to difficulty in the accrual of patients, 303 of the 480 planned patients were enrolled, 284 were fully evaluable, 147 receiving A + D, 137 M + D. Day 1 results were similar in both arms. On day 2-5, complete response rate was not significantly different (80.3% with A + D versus 82.5% with M + D, P < 0.38, respectively), and all secondary endpoints were also similar (complete protection, total control, no vomiting, no nausea, and score of Functional Living Index-Emesis; P < 0.24). Adverse events incidence was not significantly different between the two treatments.. In cancer patients submitted to cisplatin-based chemotherapy, receiving the same antiemetic prophylaxis for acute emesis, A + D is not superior to M + D in preventing delayed emesis, and both treatments present similar toxicity.. NCT00869310.

Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Italy; Male; Metoclopramide; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Young Adult

Although palonosetron (PALO) and NK1 receptor antagonist both reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, no comparison trial in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) had been reported. The purpose of this study was to find out which drug combinations are preferable for patients receiving MEC.. Chemotherapy-naive patients receiving MEC were randomized to two groups; group A first received PALO therapy [PALO plus 1-day dexamethasone (DEX)], and group B first received fosaprepitant (FAPR) therapy [FAPR, granisetron (GRAN), and DEX]. Patients were re-allocated to the other therapy, respectively, for the second cycle of chemotherapy. We administered intravenous PALO (0.75 mg) and DEX (9.9 mg) to the PALO therapy group, and FAPR (150 mg), DEX (4.95 mg), and GRAN (3 mg) to the FAPR therapy group, on Day 1. Complete response (CR) was the primary endpoint; complete control (CC), total control (CT), and the therapy chosen by the patients for their third and following cycles of antiemetic therapy were the secondary endpoints. We evaluated CR, CC, and TC in the acute phase, in the delayed phase, and over the whole period.. A total of 35 patients and 70 cycles of therapy was evaluable for analysis. No significant difference was found at all evaluation points. Overall CR rates for PALO and FAPR therapy were 74 vs 69 % (P = 0.567), CC rates 66 vs 69 % (P = 0.521), and TC rates 46 vs 60 % (P = 0.235), respectively. Patients also showed no clear preference for their third and following cycles of chemotherapy, choosing both regimens almost equally often (PALO 10 vs FAPR 13).. PALO and 1-day DEX is almost equivalent to FAPR, GRAN, and DEX for MEC.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cross-Over Studies; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Patient Preference; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Single-Blind Method; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of a single administration of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1 against DEX administration on days 1-3 in combination with palonosetron (PALO), a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC) moderately-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). This phase III trial was conducted with a multi-center, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority design. Patients who received non-AC MEC as an initial chemotherapy were randomly assigned to either a group administered PALO (0.75 mg, i.v.) and DEX (9.9 mg, i.v.) prior to chemotherapy (study treatment group), or a group administered additional DEX (8 mg, i.v. or p.o.) on days 2-3 (control group). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate. The CR rate difference was estimated by logistic regression with allocation factors as covariates. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15% (study treatment group - control group). From April 2011 to March 2013, 305 patients who received non-AC MEC were randomly allocated to one of two study groups. Overall, the CR rate was 66.2% in the study treatment group (N = 151) and 63.6% in the control group (N = 154). PALO plus DEX day 1 was non-inferior to PALO plus DEX days 1-3 (difference, 2.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -7.8%-12.8%; P-value for non-inferiority test = 0.0004). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of complete control rate (64.9 vs 61.7%) and total control rate (49.7% vs 47.4%). Anti-emetic DEX administration on days 2-3 may be eliminated when used in combination with PALO in patients receiving non-AC MEC.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Camptothecin; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Irinotecan; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1 only in patients with gynecologic cancer receiving paclitaxel combined with carboplatin (TC). The primary endpoint was to evaluate the complete response (CR) rate in the delayed phase.. This study was a randomized phase 2. Regardless of assignment to either study arm, all patients received an intravenous prophylactic regimen of DEX (20 mg) within 15 min and then an intravenous dose of PAL (0.75 mg) as a bolus given 30 min before initiation of TC on day 1. Patients in the DEX 1-day group received no additional DEX on days 2 and 3. Patients in the DEX 3-day group received DEX (8 mg) orally on days 2 and 3.. Eighty-two patients had evaluable data on the primary outcome. The CR rates in the delayed phase between the two groups were not statistically significantly different (3-day group, 76.9 % [30/39]; 1-day group 69.8 % [30/43]; p = 0.4652). The frequency of constipation and insomnia which were antiemetic treatment-related adverse events was similar between two groups, and no serious adverse events occurred.. Administration of a combination of PAL and DEX 1 day may prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase for TC as well as administration of DEX 3 days. Further evaluation of the antiemetic regimen of combination of PAL and DEX 1 day for TC is warranted in future phase 3 trials.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Carboplatin; Constipation; Dexamethasone; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Nausea; Paclitaxel; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Vomiting

There is no research regarding the appropriate antiemetic agents for female patients, especially those receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). We evaluated the antiemetic efficacy of a combination of 5-HT₃ receptor with/without aprepitant in patients with gynecological cancer treated with the TC (paclitaxel and carboplatin) regimen of MEC.. We enrolled 38 patients diagnosed with gynecologic cancer and scheduled to receive the TC regimen. The patients were randomly assigned to receive a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, either palonosetron in the first cycle followed by granisetron in the second cycle or vice versa. In the third cycle, all patients received a combination of the 5-HT₃ receptor and dexamethasone with/without aprepitant.. When three drugs were administered, palonosetron consistently produced an equivalent complete response (CR) rate to granisetron in the acute phase (89.5% vs. 86.8%, p=0.87) and delayed phase (60.5% vs. 65.8%, p=0.79). With regard to the change in dietary intake, palonosetron exhibited similar efficacy to granisetron in the acute phase (92.1% vs. 89.4%, p=0.19) and delayed phase (65.7% vs. 68.4%, p=0.14). However, in the delayed phase, the addition of aprepitant therapy with a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist and dexamethasone produced a higher CR rate than a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist with dexamethasone (93.3% vs. 47.8%, p<0.001) and allowed the patients to maintain a higher level of dietary intake (93.3% vs. 56.5%, p<0.001).. The addition of aprepitant therapy was more effective than the control therapy of a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone in gynecological cancer patients treated with the TC regimen.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Carboplatin; Cross-Over Studies; Diet; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Paclitaxel; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can affect a patient's quality of life, leading to poor compliance with further treatments. Previous studies have provided minimal data about carboplatin-based regimens. Female sex is a known risk factor for CINV. The purpose of this study was to evaluate palonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone (DEX) for preventing CINV caused by carboplatin plus paclitaxel combination therapy (TC regimen) in patients with gynecologic cancers.. Patients were recruited for this phase-II, multicenter, randomized trial from 12 hospitals in Hokkaido, Japan. Eligible patients were women with uterine cervical, endometrial or ovarian cancer scheduled to receive conventional TC regimen or dose-dense TC regimen; 116 patients were randomly assigned to receive palonosetron in combination with 1-day DEX or 3-day DEX.. During the overall period, complete response (CR) was observed in 67.9% (95% confidence interval, 53.7-80.1) of patients in the 3-day DEX arm, and 60.7% (95% confidence interval, 46.8-73.5) of patients in the 1-day DEX arm; CR was significantly lower in the 1-day DEX arm if motion sickness was already present (P = 0.0370). In the severe hyperemesis gravidarum cohort, CR in the 1-day DEX arm tended to be lower than in the 3-day DEX arm.. Combination therapy of palonosetron and 1-day DEX was effective for subjects undergoing a TC regimen for gynecologic cancers. However, the possibility of reduced efficacy of 1-day only DEX therapy in women undergoing a TC regimen could not be refuted and requires further investigation.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Carboplatin; Dexamethasone; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Nausea; Paclitaxel; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

APF530 is a novel sustained-release formulation of granisetron. In a Phase III trial, APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron 0.25 mg in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and delayed CINV after MEC, but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Emetogenicity was classified by Hesketh criteria; this reanalysis uses newer American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria.. Complete responses (no emesis or rescue medication) after cycle one were reanalyzed after reclassification of MEC and HEC by American Society of Clinical Oncology criteria.. APF530 maintained noninferiority to palonosetron.. Single-dose APF530 is a promising alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC. The Clinicaltrials.gov identifier for this study is NCT00343460.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Delayed-Action Preparations; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Although antiemetic management has improved, better control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), particularly during the delayed phase, is needed. The benefit of combination therapy using dexamethasone and the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron compared with that of other such receptor antagonists in carboplatin-based chemotherapy is unclear. The effectiveness of adding aprepitant for CINV treatment in moderate emetogenic chemotherapy is also unknown. We compared the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy using aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone with that of double antiemetic therapy using palonosetron and dexamethasone in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy.. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled in this prospective controlled study. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to groups receiving either double antiemetic therapy with palonosetron and dexamethasone, or triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. Complete response rate (no vomiting episode and no rescue therapy) was evaluated as the primary endpoint during the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.. The aprepitant add-on and double therapy groups showed overall complete response rates of 80.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 68.4-92.6%) and 76.9% (95% CI: 63.7-90.1%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.81; 95% CI; 0.27-2.36; p=0.788), respectively. Complete responses in the acute and delayed phases and overall incidences of treatment-related adverse events were similar between groups.. According to the selection design, triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone was not considered as an option for further studies.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasm Staging; Odds Ratio; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) generally includes a serotonin-type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist (RA). The efficacy and safety of the second-generation 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron, in patients with NHL receiving MEC was assessed. Patients received a single iv bolus injection of 0.25 mg palonosetron and chemotherapy on day 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle, and up to three further consecutive cycles. Eighty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint, the percentage of patients with a complete response in the overall phase (0-120 h after chemotherapy in each cycle), increased from 68.2% (cycle 1) to 80.5% (cycle 2), remaining high for the following cycles, and > 90% patients were emesis-free without using aprepitant during therapy. Across all cycles, 78.4% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, but only 8% related to study drug, confirming palonosetron's good safety profile (EudraCT Number: 2008-007827-14).

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Chemoprevention; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is integral to treatment success in patients with cancer. This analysis was undertaken to assess the relative efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus older 5HT3 RAs in preventing CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.. Patient-level data from four randomized, double-blind, phase III trials comparing palonosetron 0.25 or 0.75 mg with ondansetron 32 mg, dolasetron 100 mg, or granisetron 40 μg/kg were analyzed. Endpoints included complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue antiemetics) in the acute (0-24 h), delayed (>24-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) postchemotherapy periods (primary), complete control (CC: no emesis, no rescue antiemetics, and no more than mild nausea), number of emetic episodes, and nausea severity.. CR rates were significantly higher for palonosetron (n = 1,787) versus older 5HT3 RAs (n = 1,175) in the delayed (57 vs 45 %, P < 0.0001) and overall periods (51 vs 40 %, P < 0.0001); odds ratios (95 % CI) in the acute, delayed, and overall periods were 1.15 (0.98-1.34), 1.62 (1.40-1.88), and 1.56 (1.34-1.81), respectively. Significant differences in CC rates and nausea severity were observed for the delayed and overall periods and in emetic episodes for all three periods. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar with palonosetron (0.25 mg, 20.0 %; 0.75 mg, 26.5 %) and older 5HT3 RAs (27.5 %).. Palonosetron is more effective than older 5HT3 RAs for controlling CINV in the delayed and overall postchemotherapy periods.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Indoles; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinolizines; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Patients with gastrointestinal cancer who were receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) were switched from granisetron, a first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, to palonosetron at our hospital. In the present study, we compared effectiveness before and after switching antiemetic treatment.. Among patients who were receiving MEC for gastrointestinal cancer, we prospectively observed 46 patients given granisetron and 46 given palonosetron. To allow adverse reactions to be graded in accordance with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, a questionnaire designed at our hospital was used to compare the occurrence of delayed nausea and vomiting between patients who received granisetron (GRA group) and those who received palonosetron (PAL group).. The incidence of delayed nausea was significantly lower in the PAL group (8.7%, 4/46; p < 0.01) than in the GRA group (37%, 17/46). Delayed vomiting developed in five patients (10.9%) in the GRA group, but did not occur in the PAL group. On the basis of the results of multivariate analysis, young age, female gender, and the use of granisetron were significant risk factors for delayed nausea.. Our survey showed that palonosetron effectively controls delayed nausea caused by MEC for gastrointestinal cancer.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Female; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Surveys and Questionnaires; Vomiting

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in the prevention of vomiting, and especially nausea, in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplantation.. Palonosetron 0.25 mg was given to 27 patients receiving allogeneic transplantation on the first day of conditioning, and then every other day during the entire conditioning period. Dexamethasone was given daily also during conditioning. Vomiting and nausea were recorded daily according to CTCAE version 4.0 from the start of conditioning to Day 7 after transplantation. In addition, MASCC antiemetic tool (MAT) was also used in parallel to evaluate the intensity of nausea.. The treatment was well tolerated; 25.9 and 40.7 % of the patients had grade 2/3 vomiting and nausea respectively during conditioning. The incidences of grade 2/3 vomiting and nausea were even higher in the first week after transplantation (40.7 and 51.8 %, respectively). The score of MAT correlated well with the grade of CTCAE. However, the difference in the mean intensity of nausea between period of conditioning and the first week after HSCT was significant only by using MAT (0.96 ± 1.829 vs. 3.81 ± 3.386, p=0.001) but not CTCAE (1.26   ± 0.903 vs. 1.63 ±0.967, p=0.152).. Palonosetron combined with dexamethasone is effective in preventing vomiting during conditioning. However, more effort should be made to alleviate nausea during conditioning and both nausea and vomiting in the first week after transplantation. Furthermore, MAT has a higher discriminant power than CTCAE in assessing the intensity of nausea in patients receiving allogeneic transplantation.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Busulfan; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Female; Hematologic Neoplasms; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Transplantation Conditioning; Transplantation, Homologous; Vidarabine; Vomiting; Young Adult

Antiemetic guidelines recommend co-administration of agents that target multiple molecular pathways involved in emesis to maximize prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). NEPA is a new oral fixed-dose combination of 300 mg netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) and 0.50 mg palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT3 RA, which targets dual antiemetic pathways.. This multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel group phase III study (NCT01339260) in 1455 chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving moderately emetogenic (anthracycline-cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of NEPA versus a single oral dose (0.50 mg) of PALO. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1 only (12 mg in the NEPA arm and 20 mg in the PALO arm). The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the delayed (25-120 h) phase in cycle 1.. The percentage of patients with CR during the delayed phase was significantly higher in the NEPA group compared with the PALO group (76.9% versus 69.5%; P = 0.001), as were the percentages in the overall (0-120 h) (74.3% versus 66.6%; P = 0.001) and acute (0-24 h) (88.4% versus 85.0%; P = 0.047) phases. NEPA was also superior to PALO during the delayed and overall phases for all secondary efficacy end points of no emesis, no significant nausea and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea). NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile as PALO.. NEPA plus a single dose of DEX was superior to PALO plus DEX in preventing CINV following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in acute, delayed and overall phases of observation. As a fixed-dose antiemetic drug combination, NEPA along with a single dose of DEX on day 1 offers guideline-based prophylaxis with a convenient, single-day treatment.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

NEPA is a novel oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant (NETU), a new highly selective neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) RA. This study was designed to determine the appropriate clinical dose of NETU to combine with PALO for evaluation in the phase 3 NEPA program.. This randomized, double-blind, parallel group study in 694 chemotherapy naïve patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy for solid tumors compared three different oral doses of NETU (100, 200, and 300 mg) + PALO 0.50 mg with oral PALO 0.50 mg, all given on day 1. A standard 3-day aprepitant (APR) + IV ondansetron (OND) 32 mg regimen was included as an exploratory arm. All patients received oral dexamethasone on days 1-4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the overall (0-120 h) phase.. All NEPA doses showed superior overall CR rates compared with PALO (87.4%, 87.6%, and 89.6% for NEPA100, NEPA200, and NEPA300, respectively versus 76.5% PALO; P < 0.050) with the highest NEPA300 dose studied showing an incremental benefit over lower NEPA doses for all efficacy endpoints. NEPA300 was significantly more effective than PALO and numerically better than APR + OND for all secondary efficacy endpoints of no emesis, no significant nausea, and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea) rates during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall phases. Adverse events were comparable across groups with no dose response. The percent of patients developing electrocardiogram changes was also comparable.. Each NEPA dose provided superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with PALO following highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, NEPA300 was the best dose studied, with an advantage over lower doses for all efficacy endpoints. The combination of NETU and PALO was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to PALO and APR + OND.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Antineoplastic Agents; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Safe, effective and convenient antiemetic regimens that preserve benefit over repeated cycles are needed for optimal supportive care during cancer treatment. NEPA, an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron (PALO), a distinct 5-HT3 RA, was shown to be superior to PALO in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after a single cycle of highly (HEC) or moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy in recent trials. This study was designed primarily to assess the safety but also to evaluate the efficacy of NEPA over multiple cycles of HEC and MEC.. This multinational, double-blind, randomized phase III study (NCT01376297) in 413 chemotherapy-naïve patients evaluated a single oral dose of NEPA (NETU 300 mg + PALO 0.50 mg) given on day 1 with oral dexamethasone (DEX). An oral 3-day aprepitant (APR) regimen + PALO + DEX was included as a control (3:1 NEPA:APR randomization). In HEC, DEX was administered on days 1-4 and in MEC on day 1. Safety was assessed primarily by adverse events (AEs), including cardiac AEs; efficacy by complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue).. Patients completed 1961 total chemotherapy cycles (76% MEC, 24% HEC) with 75% completing ≥4 cycles. The incidence/type of AEs was comparable for both groups. Most frequent NEPA-related AEs included constipation (3.6%) and headache (1.0%); there was no indication of increasing AEs over multiple cycles. The majority of AEs were mild/moderate and there were no cardiac safety concerns based on AEs and electrocardiograms. The overall (0-120 h) CR rates in cycle 1 were 81% and 76% for NEPA and APR + PALO, respectively, and antiemetic efficacy was maintained over repeated cycles.. NEPA, a convenient single oral dose antiemetic targeting dual pathways, was safe, well tolerated and highly effective over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

This study aimed to determine the antiemetic efficacy and safety of a combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone in patients with testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT) receiving 5-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.. An open-label, single-arm, multicenter study was performed in patients with TGCT who were scheduled to receive 5-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy. The antiemetic therapy consisted of palonosetron 0.75 mg on day 1, aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 to 5, and dexamethasone 9.9 mg on day 1 and 6.6 mg on days 2 to 8. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate, which was defined as no vomiting and no rescue medication, in the overall period (0 to 216 h) in the first chemotherapy course. Incidence and severity of nausea were assessed based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and a subjective rating scale completed by patients.. Thirty patients were included in the analysis. CR was achieved in 90.0% of the patients in the first chemotherapy course, and high CR rates were also observed in the second and third courses (82.1 and 78.3%, respectively). The incidence of nausea peaked on days 4 to 6 in about 50% of the patients. The reported adverse drug reactions were hiccups (13.3%), anorexia (3.3%), and stomach pain (3.3%). None of these were unexpected and none were grade 3 or 4.. The combination antiemetic therapy examined in this study was highly effective and well-tolerated in patients with TGCT receiving 5-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Testicular Neoplasms; Vomiting

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is crucial for maintaining the quality of life of cancer patients. Female patients have been underrepresented in previous clinical studies of aprepitant or palonosetron. We performed a prospective multicenter study to investigate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy comprising these two agents and dexamethasone in female cancer patients receiving chemotherapy that included cisplatin (≥ 50 mg/m(2)).. Aprepitant was administered at a dose of 125 mg before chemotherapy on day 1 and at 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Palonosetron (0.75 mg) was given before chemotherapy on day 1. Dexamethasone was administered at a dose of 9.9 mg before chemotherapy on day 1 and at 6.6 mg on days 2-4. The primary endpoint was the the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) throughout the overall period (0-120 h post-chemotherapy).. Ninety-six women (median age 55 years) were enrolled. The overall CR rate was 54.2 %. CR was obtained during the acute phase (0-24 h post-chemotherapy) and the delayed phase (24-120 h post-chemotherapy) in 87.5 and 56.3 % of the patients, respectively. The most common adverse reactions were constipation and fatigue (reported by three patients each).. Exhibition of a favorable overall CR rate over existing two-drug combinations suggests that the triple therapy regimen used in the present study is effective and tolerable in patients with gynecological malignancies receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Female patients may have a higher risk of developing CINV.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

To investigate the electronic anti-nausea instrument (EANI) combined with hydrochloride palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy.. Patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomly assigned to a treatment group (60 patients) treated with EANI combined with hydrochloride palonosetron, and control group (also 60 patients) given only hydrochloride palonosetron. Chemotherapy related nausea and vomiting were observed and recorded in both groups of patients from the start till the end of chemotherapy.. Complete control rates of vomiting in treatment and control group were 40%, and 35%, respectively, without any statistical ly significant difference (p> 0.05); however the response rates are 95.0%, 78.3%, respectively, with statistical difference (p< 0.05). Complete control rates of nausea in treatment and control group were 36.7%, 30%, respectively, without statistical difference (p> 0.05); but the response rates are 90.0%, 76.7%, respectively, with statistical difference (p<0.05).. EANI combined with hydrochloride palonosetron for prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy could be more effective than hydrochloride palonosetron alone, and can be recommended for use in prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Carmustine; Cisplatin; Cyclophosphamide; Dacarbazine; Doxorubicin; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Epirubicin; Humans; Ifosfamide; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting; Young Adult

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

Concomitant antiemetic therapy comprising fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone is effective for head and neck carcinoma.. A patient diary was constructed to determine the effectiveness of concomitant antiemetic therapy with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant), 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (palonosetron), and dexamethasone in accordance with guidelines.. Subjects comprised 41 patients who received 71 courses of chemotherapy, along with fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. A patient diary was compiled concerning the presence/absence of vomiting, vomiting episodes, presence/absence of rescue therapy, food intake, presence/absence of nausea, and general condition.. The frequency of the primary end point of complete response in the overall phase was 69.0%. The proportion of patients with no vomiting in the overall phase was 90.1%. In the acute phase, the proportion of no nausea and slight nausea together was 91.5%, no change in and slightly reduced food intake together was 87.3%, and the proportion of good general condition and relatively good general condition was 85.9%. In the delayed phase, the proportion of no nausea and slight nausea together was 56.3%, no change in and slightly reduced food intake together was 43.7%, and the proportion of good general condition and relatively good general condition together was 53.5%.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Eating; Female; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most problematic adverse events that affects the well-being of cancer patients. Risk factors for CINV and its elimination are necessary to increase the indications for and effectiveness of chemotherapy. We enrolled 1549 chemotherapy-naïve patients in two phase II trials and one phase III trial of palonosetron between 2005 and 2007. Treatment failure (any emetic episodes or any administration of rescue medication) and/or nausea, and their associations with patient factors were evaluated in acute and in delayed phases using univariate and multivariate analyses. Female gender (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 2.96, 2.09-4.20), age <55 years (2.56, 1.94-3.37), non-habitual alcohol intake (1.90, 1.43-2.51) and non-smoker (1.40, 1.04-1.90) were associated with treatment failure in the acute phase. In contrast, only female gender (1.88, 1.34-2.64) was associated with treatment failure in the delayed phase. The number of risk factors was significantly associated with CINV in both acute and delayed phases. Patient risk factors were significantly associated with CINV. Depending on the relationship between CINV-related risk factors and a tailored antiemetic treatment, high-risk patients defined by the listed risk factors may be candidates for future clinical trials.

Topics: Age Factors; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Multivariate Analysis; Nausea; Palonosetron; Precision Medicine; Quinuclidines; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Smoking; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are some of the most problematic symptoms for cancer patients. Triplet therapy consisting of a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and dexamethasone is a guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The efficacy and safety of triplet therapy using a 0.75-mg dose of palonosetron have not yet been investigated. We performed a prospective phase II study using triplet antiemetic therapy with 0.75 mg of palonosetron.. Chemotherapy-naïve lung cancer patients scheduled to receive HEC were enrolled. The eligible patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy consisting of the intravenous administration of 0.75 mg of palonosetron, and 9.9 mg of dexamethasone and the oral administration of 125 mg of aprepitant on day 1, followed by the oral administration of 80 mg of aprepitant on days 2-3 and the oral administration of 8 mg of dexamethasone on days 2-4. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate (the CR rate; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0-120 h).. The efficacy analysis was performed in 63 patients. The CR rates during the overall, acute and delayed phases were 81.0, 96.8, and 81.0%, respectively. The no nausea and no significant nausea rate during the overall phase were 54.0 and 66.7%, respectively. The most common adverse event was grade 1 or 2 constipation.. Triplet antiemetic therapy using a 0.75-mg dose of palonosetron shows a promising antiemetic effect in preventing CINV in lung cancer patients receiving HEC.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The effectiveness of palonosetron without delayed dexamethasone dosing against emesis was investigated in patients scheduled to receive the corticosteroid-containing combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) for 3 cycles.. Chemo-naïve women with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin (60 mg/m(2)) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) were eligible. Patients received palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously before chemotherapy, however, all patients also received a premedication consisting of prednisone (25 mg orally the evening before therapy) and hydrocortisone (250 mg intravenously just before paclitaxel). The primary end point was complete control (CC; no vomiting, no rescue anti-emetics, and no more than mild nausea) during the overall phase (days 1-5) following cycle 1.. Seventy-six patients were enrolled and evaluable (median age 50 years). Fifty-six patients (74%; 95% CI 62-83%) achieved overall CC. Acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-5) CC rates were 78 and 74%, respectively. No vomiting rates for the acute, delayed and overall phases were 85, 85 and 83%, respectively. An exploratory analysis showed only a small decrease in the probability of achieving CC between cycle 1 (74%) and cycle 3 (66%).. The dexamethasone-sparing strategy prevented emesis in more than 70% of breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of AT chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma; Constipation; Dexamethasone; Doxorubicin; Female; Headache; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Nausea; Paclitaxel; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Young Adult

Nausea and vomiting are among the most feared complications of chemotherapy reported by patients. The objective of this study was to establish the overall complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue medication 0-120 h after chemotherapy) with either ondansetron- or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).. This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, single-center, pilot study that enrolled patients receiving their first cycle of HEC. Patients were randomized to receive either palonosetron 0.25 mg IV (PAD) or ondansetron 24 mg orally (OAD) on day 1 prior to HEC. All patients received oral aprepitant 125 mg on day 1, then 80 mg on days 2 and 3, and oral dexamethasone 12 mg on day 1, then 8 mg on days 2, 3, and 4. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data.. A total of 40 patients were enrolled, 20 in each arm. All patients were female, and 39 received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer. For the primary endpoint, 65 % (95 % CI, 40.8-84.6 %) of patients in the PAD arm and 40 % (95 % CI, 19.1-63.9 %) of patients in the OAD arm achieved an overall CR.. While CR rates for aprepitant and dexamethasone plus palonosetron or ondansetron-containing regimens have been published previously, this is the first documentation of CR rates with these regimens in the same patient population. These results may be used to design a larger, adequately powered, prospective study comparing these regimens.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Breast Neoplasms; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Pilot Projects; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Recommendations for antiemetic prophylaxis supportive to radiotherapy and concomitant chemotherapy are not evidence-based. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the antiemetic regimen concurrent to fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin in two Danish departments of oncology.. Patients with gynecological cancer scheduled to receive fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m(2)) were asked to complete a study diary in order to assess episodes of emesis, grade of nausea, and use of rescue antiemetic treatment daily during 5 weeks of treatment. Antiemetic treatment consisted of palonosetron and prednisolone. A patient had completed the study if emesis occurred or if 5 weeks of treatment were accomplished without emesis. The primary endpoint was sustained no emesis during 5 weeks of treatment.. A total of 48 patients completed 155 weekly cycles of radiotherapy, concomitant weekly cisplatin, and antiemetic prophylaxis. The probability of completing 5 cycles without emesis (sustained no emesis) was 57 %. During cycle 1, 42 % of the patients were free from nausea. After 5 cycles, only 23 % of patients were continuously free from nausea. One half of the patients used rescue antiemetic treatment at least once during the 5 cycles.. The present study demonstrates that an antiemetic prophylaxis consisting of palonosetron and prednisolone is insufficient for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin in patients treated for gynecological cancer. The addition of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist should be investigated in a randomized, double-blind study in this setting.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Chemoradiotherapy; Cisplatin; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prednisolone; Quinuclidines; Vaginal Neoplasms; Vomiting; Vulvar Neoplasms

Data from two randomized trials were pooled to further characterize the effectiveness of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy.. The analysis included 1411 patients who were randomized to receive palonosetron or ondansetron/granisetron intravenously on day 1 plus either 1-day or 3-day dexamethasone dosing. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no rescue antiemetics over days 1-5) in cycle one. Data across the studies were analyzed by the Mantel-Haenszel method.. The vast majority of patients received either cisplatin (62%) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (34%). The palonosetron regimen provided a 12 percentage-point improvement in the rate of overall complete response compared with the control regimen (49.2 vs 37.3%; odds ratio: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.33-2.04; p < 0.0001). The frequency of no delayed nausea at all daily periods was consistently higher in the palonosetron group.. The current analysis confirmed that palonosetron plus dexamethasone improved control of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting throughout 5 days postchemotherapy to a significantly greater extent than the combination including older 5-HT3 antagonists.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remain among the most feared adverse effects for cancer patients.. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination of aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy.. Forty-one solid cancer patients received aprepitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone during a 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Primary end-point was complete response in the overall phase (day 1 until 5 days after the end of chemotherapy).. Aprepitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone was safe, with hiccups (31.7%), fatigue (17.1%), headache (14.6%) and constipation (12.2%) the most common treatment-related adverse events, mostly mild. Complete response was seen in 58.5% of patients in the overall phase. In 23 patients receiving aprepitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone more than one cycle (range: 2-5 cycles), the cumulative emetic protection rate after five cycles was 0.82.. This study shows aprepitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone is safe and effectively controls chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy, moreover, the efficacy is maintained during multiple cycles.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Constipation; Dexamethasone; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fatigue; Female; Headache; Hiccup; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting; Young Adult

Olanzapine has been shown to be a safe and effective agent for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Olanzapine may also be an effective rescue medication for patients who develop breakthrough CINV despite having received guideline-directed CINV prophylaxis.. A double-blind, randomized phase III trial was performed for the treatment of breakthrough CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (cisplatin, ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin, ≥ 50 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide, ≥ 600 mg/m2), comparing olanzapine to metoclopramide. Patients who developed breakthrough emesis or nausea despite prophylactic dexamethasone (12 mg IV), palonosetron (0.25 mg IV), and fosaprepitant (150 mg IV) pre-chemotherapy and dexamethasone (8 mg p.o. daily, days 2-4) post-chemotherapy were randomized to receive olanzapine, 10 mg orally daily for 3 days or metoclopramide, 10 mg orally TID for 3 days. Patients were monitored for emesis and nausea for 72 h after taking olanzapine or metoclopramide. Two hundred seventy-six patients (median age 62 years, range 38-79; 43% women; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS 0,1) consented to the protocol. One hundred twelve patients developed breakthrough CINV and 108 were evaluable.. During the 72-h observation period, 39 out of 56 (70%) patients receiving olanzapine had no emesis compared to 16 out of 52 (31%) patients with no emesis for patients receiving metoclopramide (p < 0.01). Patients without nausea (0, scale 0-10, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory) during the 72-h observation period were those who took olanzapine, 68% (38 of 56), and metoclopramide, 23% (12 of 52) (p < 0.01). There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities.. Olanzapine was significantly better than metoclopramide in the control of breakthrough emesis and nausea in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Benzodiazepines; Cisplatin; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Metoclopramide; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Palonosetron (Aloxi(®), Onicit(®)) is a pharmacologically unique 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) approved as a single IV injection for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy (CINV) of either moderate or highly emetogenic potential (MEC and HEC, respectively). An oral palonosetron formulation has been developed and compared to the IV formulation.. In this multinational, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, dose-ranging trial, 651 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following as a single dose prior to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: oral palonosetron 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mg or IV palonosetron 0.25 mg. Patients were also randomized (1:1) to receive dexamethasone 8 mg IV or matched placebo on day 1. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue therapy) during the acute phase (0-24 h).. Acute CR rates were 73.5, 76.3, 74.1, and 70.4 % for all patients receiving the palonosetron 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mg oral doses, and for IV palonosetron 0.25 mg, respectively; delayed CR (24-120 h) rates were 59.4, 62.5, 60.1, and 65.4 %, and overall CR (0-120 h) rates were 53.5, 58.8, 53.2, and 59.3 %, respectively. The addition of dexamethasone improved emetic control (acute CR rate) by at least 15 % for all groups except oral palonosetron 0.25 mg, where the acute CR improvement was approximately 7 %. Adverse events were similar in nature, incidence, and intensity for all oral and IV palonosetron groups, and were the expected adverse events for 5-HT3 RAs (primarily headache and constipation).. Oral palonosetron has a similar efficacy and safety profile as IV palonosetron 0.25 mg and may be the preferred formulation in certain clinical situations. Among the tested oral treatments, a palonosetron 0.50-mg oral dose has been favored for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy due to a numerical gain in efficacy without a side effect disadvantage.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are among the major problems occurring during and after the chemotherapy treatments of cancer patients. The recently developed 5-HT(3) antagonists have proved much more effective than former agents. Several studies have shown that these agents cause certain ECG changes. We aimed to evaluate the ECG changes caused by palonosetron, one of the new 5-HT(3) antagonists.. Our study includes a total of 50 patients diagnosed with solid-organ tumors receiving chemotherapy. The patients were applied 12-lead ECG before palonosetron infusion. Afterwards, subsequent ECGs were applied on the 30th, 60th, and 90th minutes following the infusion of palonosetron. Arterial blood pressure was measured before and after the infusion. PR, QRS, QT, QTmax, QTmin, QTd, Pmax, Pmin, Pd, QTc, QTcmax, QTcmin, and QTcd values were evaluated for each ECG.. We did not detect significant correlations between the systolic and diastolic blood pressures before and after (30 min) palonosetron infusion (p > 0.05). However, there was a statistically significant decrease in heart rate (p = 0.000). The evaluation of ECG findings revealed that there was a significant prolongation in PR distance, as shown by the comparisons of 0 min with 30, 60, and 90 min. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in QRS, QT, QTmax, QTmin, QTd, Pmax, Pmin, Pd, QTc, QTcmax, QTcmin, and QTcd values (p > 0.05).. In this study, we revealed that palonosetron did not cause any severe rhythmic disorders or symptomatic ECG changes. We concluded that it could be safe to administer palonosetron antiemetically.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Blood Pressure; Electrocardiography; Female; Heart Rate; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Time Factors; Vomiting; Young Adult

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is of great importance for the completion of multiple cycles of cancer chemotherapy. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with proven efficacy for both acute and delayed CINV. This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of 0.75 mg palonosetron in repeated cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy or anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination (AC/EC).. We gave 0.75 mg palonosetron to 538 patients 30 min prior to ≥ 50 mg/m(2) cisplatin or AC/EC on day 1. Prophylactic dexamethasone was administered on days 1-3. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events (AEs). The secondary endpoint was complete response rate (CR, defined as no emesis and no rescue medication) throughout the study period.. Treatment-related AEs were seen in 44% (237 of 538 patients). Serious AEs were seen in 4% (23 of 538 patients), all considered unrelated or unlikely to be related to palonosetron. Only one patient discontinued the study due to a treatment-related AE. No trend toward worsening of AEs was observed in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy. Complete response rates were maintained throughout repeated cycles.. The extraordinary safety profile and maintenance of efficacy of 0.75 mg palonosetron combined with dexamethasone were demonstrated throughout repeated chemotherapy cycles.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC).. Patients with breast cancer, ≥ age 18, with a performance status of ≤ 2, receiving doxorubicin (≥ 60 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (≥ 500 mg/m(2)) for the first time were eligible. Prior to chemotherapy patients received aprepitant 125 mg orally (PO), dexamethasone 8-10 mg PO/intravenously (IV), and palonosetron 0.25 mg IV. On days 2-3, dexamethasone 4 mg PO and aprepitant 80 mg PO were given. Outcomes were recorded in patient diaries for the 120-h study period following chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving complete response (no emesis or rescue) for the 120-h study period.. Thirty-six patients were enrolled and all are evaluable. The median age was 53 (33-75) and 36 are females. Eighteen patients (50%) achieved a complete response during the 120-h study period. Acute (≤ 24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) complete response rates were 81% (27/36) and 61% (22/36), respectively. No emesis rates for the acute, delayed, and overall study periods were 97% (35/36), 94% (34/36), and 92% (33/36), respectively. Treatment was well tolerated.. The combination of aprepitant, dexamethasone, and palonosetron prevented emesis in more than 90% of breast cancer patients receiving their initial cycle of AC chemotherapy. Nausea was less well controlled. Overall complete response was achieved in one half of the study patients. Further improvement in the prevention of AC-induced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting will require more effective antinausea treatments.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Breast Neoplasms; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pilot Projects; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

High dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), used in the treatment of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), is moderately emetogenic. First generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists are effective prophylactic agents but require multiple administrations. Palonosetron has a half life of 36-42 hours and has higher affinity and selectivity to the 5-HT(3) receptor. Adult studies have demonstrated that palonosetron is both more effective and require fewer administrations than first generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a single dose of palonosetron (5 µg/kg) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children 18 years of age with ALL treated with HD-MTX, 5 g/m(2).. Between January 2010 and December 2010, 138 courses, originating from 53 children, were included from four Danish Childhood Cancer Centers. Information regarding emetic episodes, rescue therapy, and nausea were recorded prospectively on questionnaires.. Complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) was achieved in 84.1% of courses during the acute (0-24 hours post-chemotherapy) and in 60.1% during the delayed phase (24-66 hours post-chemotherapy). 92.0% of courses were free of emesis during the acute, and 86.2% were free of emesis during the delayed phase. 76.8% of courses were free of nausea during the acute, and 78.3% were free of nausea during the delayed phase.. A single dose of palonosetron--without concomitant corticosteroid--was effective in preventing both acute and delayed phase CINV in majority of children with ALL treated with HD-MTX.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Child; Child, Preschool; Denmark; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Methotrexate; Nausea; Palonosetron; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Time Factors; Vomiting

Treatment of metastatic melanoma with interleukin-2-based biochemotherapy involves administration of a combination of moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapies over 5 days. Corticosteroids for the prevention of biochemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are contraindicated because they cause lysis of LAK cells produced in response to interleukin-2. Palonosetron is a long-acting, highly potent, second-generation serotonin receptor antagonist. The recommended dosing schedule of palonosetron for the control of CINV due to biochemotherapy is not known.. In a phase II design, treatment-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma undergoing the first cycle of biochemotherapy were randomized to receive palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously for CINV prophylaxis on either days 1 and 4 (schedule 1) or days 1, 3, and 5 (schedule 2). All patients received dacarbazine on day 1, cisplatin, vinblastine, and interleukin-2 on days 1-4, and interferon alpha-2b on days 1-5. We evaluated and compared, by palonosetron dosing schedule, the pattern and the severity of CINV during the first 7 days of treatment and the duration of the 21-day cycle as well as the impact on daily function with the Functional Living Index-Emesis.. Thirty patients (median age 53 years) were enrolled. Eighteen (60%) were men. A consistent trend of a better control of both nausea and vomiting favoring schedule 2 was observed during the first 7 days and throughout the cycle. Significantly more patients experienced nausea on any day during the first 7 days on schedule 1 (mean number of episodes 8.1 ± 1.5) than on schedule 2 (mean number of episodes 5.6 ± 2.3, p = 0.028). The impact on daily function was similar between the two groups.. Both dosing schedules of palonosetron were tolerated well. Alternate day dosing of palonosetron was more effective in controlling CINV in this patient population.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Humans; Interleukin-2; Isoquinolines; Male; Melanoma; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

The goal of pharmacological prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) should be the elimination of both nausea and vomiting symptoms during all planned chemotherapy cycles. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron and dexamethasone to prevent CINV and to guarantee an adequate food intake (FI) in patients receiving several cycles of multiple day-based chemotherapy (MD-CT).. Patients with advanced cancer but without a compromised nutritional status (bone mass index ≥ 18.5) were treated with 0.25 mg palonosetron plus 20 mg dexamethasone before MD-CT. The MD-CT regimen was either epirubicin plus ifosfamide or paclitaxel plus cisplatin and ifosfamide. Nausea, vomiting, and FI were monitored in a 7-day diary. Complete response (CR: no vomiting and no rescue therapy) was the primary endpoint, while complete control (CC: CR and no more than mild nausea) and the evaluation of FI were secondary endpoints. The endpoints were evaluated during the overall timescale (0-168 h) of the chemotherapy regimen.. Fifty patients were enrolled, 80% of whom achieved CR and 78% achieved CC. During the six chemotherapy cycles, CR and CC ranged from 76% to 88% and from 62% to 88%, respectively. Moreover, patients with CR had a significantly (p < 0.0001) higher weekly food intake compared with patients not achieving CR.. This trial was the first to assess the efficacy of palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of both nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple cycles of MD-CT. In this trial, the ability of patients to intake an adequate amount of food each week was correlated with nausea, thus providing clinicians with an objective parameter for the measurement of the effects of nausea. A single dose of palonosetron and dexamethasone was able to prevent CINV in most patients receiving 3 days of chemotherapy during all planned chemotherapy cycles.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer who had incomplete control of CINV during their previous cycle of low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC).. Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed cancer, ≥18 years of age, with a Karnofsky Performance Scale score of ≥50% who had received LEC that induced vomiting and/or at least moderate nausea during their previous treatment cycle received palonosetron 0.25 mg IV 30 min before chemotherapy. Outcomes were recorded in patient diaries over 120 h and at an end-of-study visit on days 6, 7, or 8 after LEC administration. The primary efficacy variable was the complete response rate, defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication at 0-24 h (acute post-chemotherapy phase), 24-120 h (delayed phase), and 0-120 h (overall).. Complete responses among the intent-to-treat study population (n = 34) were recorded for 88.2 % of patients in the acute phase, 67.6% in the delayed phase, and 67.6% overall. No emetic episodes occurred in 91.2 and 79.4% of patients during the acute and delayed phases, respectively, and no nausea in 73.5 and 52.9%, respectively. Palonosetron was well tolerated; only two patients experienced treatment-related adverse events.. Among the patients with cancer who had a history of CINV with LEC, palonosetron was effective in preventing CINV in both the acute and delayed post-chemotherapy phases, and was well tolerated. Randomized comparative studies in larger populations of patients receiving LEC are needed to confirm these findings.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Patient Safety; Pilot Projects; Quinuclidines; Salvage Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

For moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, palonosetron (PALO) is reported to provide complete control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in 69% of patients. Prior to August 2009, our gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients receiving the moderately emetogenic compounds oxaliplatin or irinotecan plus a fluoropyrimidine regimen received ondansetron and dexamethasone orally on day 1 of chemotherapy for CINV prevention. Beginning in August of 2009, ondansetron was replaced by PALO 0.25 mg (intravenous push).. This is a single-institution retrospective study of GI cancer patients who received oxaliplatin or irinotecan plus a fluoropyrimidine. Failure of an antiemetic regimen was defined as grade ≥1 vomiting or grade ≥2 nausea (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3) on days 1 through 5 following chemotherapy. Patients were divided for analysis into pre-PALO and post-PALO cohorts. Fisher's exact test compared cohort differences.. A total of 305 patients were included in the study, with 157 patients in the pre-PALO cohort and 148 in the post-PALO cohort. For all patients, the risk of antiemetic failure was reduced from 50.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 42.2-58.4%] to 28.4% (95% CI 21.3-36.4%) with PALO. This reduction in the relative risk of antiemetic failure was observed in all subgroups.. The addition of PALO may provide increased control of CINV for the moderately emetogenic regimens of oxaliplatin or irinotecan plus a fluoropyrimidine in GI cancer patients.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Camptothecin; Capecitabine; Deoxycytidine; Female; Fluorouracil; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Humans; Irinotecan; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Ondansetron; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome

We conducted a double-blind randomized clinical trial of the following four regimens for controlling delayed nausea (DN): group 1: palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine on days 2 and 3; group 2: granisetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine on days 2 and 3; group 3: aprepitant + palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with aprepitant + dexamethasone on days 2 and 3; and group 4: palonosetron + dexamethasone on day 1 with prochlorperazine + dexamethasone on days 2 and 3.. Chemotherapy-naive patients received doxorubicin, epirubicin, cisplatin, carboplatin, or oxaliplatin. The primary end point was average nausea assessed four times daily on days 2 and 3. Primary analyses were whether nausea control would be improved by using palonosetron versus granisetron on day 1 (group 1 v group 2); by adding dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (group 1 v group 4); and by using aprepitant versus prochlorperazine (group 3 v group 4). Statistical significance was set at P = .017.. Two hundred thirty-four, 234, 241, and 235 evaluable patients were accrued to groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Adjusted mean differences for the three planned analyses were as follows: palonosetron versus granisetron: -0.01 (95% CI, -0.23 to 0.20; P = .72); adding dexamethasone on days 2 and 3: 0.20 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.41; P = .01); and using aprepitant versus prochlorperazine: -0.03 (95% CI, -0.24 to 0.19; P = .56).. The addition of dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 reduced DN. Palonosetron and granisetron have similar effects on DN. The beneficial effect of adding aprepitant for control of DN was the same as adding prochlorperazine.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Intention to Treat Analysis; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Prochlorperazine; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)is one of the side effects causing significant psychological and physical suffering in patients receiving chemotherapy. First-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists(ondansetron, granisetron and ramosetron)are available, but some patients are still not treated adequately. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a prolonged duration of action and a higher receptor binding affinity than first-generation agents. In the present study, we aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy of palonosetron vs. ramosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV. Patients received palonosetron followed by ramosetron, and the antiemetic effects were evaluated by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool(MAT). A total of 22 patients with colon cancer receiving chemotherapy were included in the efficacy analyses. Nine patients were observed with acute nausea, and 11 patients with delayed nausea. Relief of symptoms was observed in 3 patients with acute nausea and 4 patients with delayed nausea by switching from ramosetron to palonosetron. There was no significant difference of improvement in the acute phase, there was significantly suppressed in the delayed phase.

Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Colonic Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron and granisetron in a Chinese population receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy with cisplatin (yes/no) and then randomly assigned to receive either palonosetron (0.25 mg i.v.) in the first cycle followed by granisetron (3 mg i.v.) in the second cycle or vice versa. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response 0-24 h post-chemotherapy administration. The proportions of patients with complete response 24-120 and 0-120 h following chemotherapy were also compared. Of the 144 patients randomized, 36 (25%) received 60-80 mg/m(2) cisplatin; 66 of 72 patients in the palonosetron to granisetron group and 56 of 72 patients in the granisetron to palonosetron group completed treatment with both antiemetics. The efficacy and safety analyses included 128 palonosetron treatments and 138 granisetron treatments. Palonosetron consistently produced numerically higher complete response rates than granisetron in the acute phase (0-24 h, 71.09 vs. 65.22%), the delayed phase (24-120 h, 60.16 vs. 55.80%), and overall (0-120 h, 53.13 vs. 50.00%) though the differences were not significant. Both palonosetron and granisetron were well tolerated. Palonosetron was well tolerated and effective in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a Chinese population. When used as monotherapy, 0.25-mg palonosetron was not inferior to 3-mg granisetron for preventing vomiting following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Asian People; China; Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Young Adult

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a side effect related to administration of the adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) in patients affected by glioblastoma. After chemoradiotherapy, adjuvant TMZ is administered as an oral multiple-day regimen, and TMZ-associated CINV may interfere with the continuation of chemotherapy, with potentially negative consequences on clinical efficacy. The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of palonosetron for prevention of CINV-induced by adjuvant TMZ.. From March 2007 to August 2008, 33 patients with confirmed glioblastoma and eligible for adjuvant treatment with TMZ were enrolled in the study. All patients with responding or stable disease after concomitant radiotherapy plus daily TMZ (75 mg/m(2)) received a single i.v. bolus 0.25 mg of palonosetron 30 min before the beginning of adjuvant TMZ (150-200 mg/m(2)/day for five consecutive days every 4 weeks). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with complete response (CR), defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication during the overall phase (0-168 h). Secondary endpoints included CR during the 0-120 h and 0-168 h phases and complete control (CC; CR and no more than mild nausea) during the 0-120 h, 120-168 h, and 0-168 h phases.. Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study (median age 57.6 years, 23 male and 10 female, median Karnofsky Performance Status = 80). Each patient was receiving fixed doses of dexamethasone (range 2-8 mg/day). CR in the 0-120 h, 120-168 h, and 0-168 h phases was seen in 91% of patients. CC was observed in 88%, 91%, and 88% of cases during the 0-120 h, 120-168 h, and 0-168 h phases, respectively. Anti-emetic prophylaxis with palonosetron was well tolerated and the most frequent adverse event was grade 1-2 headache reported by seven patients (21%).. A single dose of palonosetron before the initiation of multiple oral doses of TMZ, in patients on treatment with steady doses of dexamethasone, provides a high protection against CINV throughout the overall phase (0-168 h). The pharmacological profile of palonosetron, compared to first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, may have an impact on its clinical efficacy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Combined Modality Therapy; Dacarbazine; Dexamethasone; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Glioblastoma; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Temozolomide; 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

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death for both men and women worldwide, and lung cancer also has the highest morbidity and mortality rate among all cancers in China. Chemotherapy (CT) is the most effective and most widely used treatment for lung cancer. Nausea and vomiting are still among the most unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy, especially during highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The standard therapy for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists. Palonosetron is a highly potent second-generation selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with stronger binding affinity for the 5-HT3 receptor. Palonosetron showed a high antiemetic activity in preclinical study and pivotal trails enrolling patients treated with moderately or high antiemetic activity drugs. Aim of the study was to verify the activity and safety of palonosetron in patients affected by non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and treated with chemotherapy. Patients with stage II-IV NSCLC and receiving chemotherapy entered into the trial. Informed written consent was required. Patients were randomized to received palonosetron or ondasetron. A single pretreatment dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenous followed was administered. Nausea and vomiting were evaluated over 7-day period. Also the adverse effects were reported. Adverse events were evaluated according to the NCI-CTC criteria. Eighty-nine patients were enrolled into the study. The complete responses during the acute phase were 95.4 and 93.3%, respectively. The main side effects were headache 4.5%, constipation 15.7%, anxiety 2.3%. Palonosetron is a very active antiemetic drug for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in NSCLC patients received chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasm Staging; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

The control of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy is paramount for overall treatment success in cancer patients. Antiemetic therapy during chemotherapy in lymphoma patients generally consists of anti-serotoninergic drugs and dexamethasone. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron, a second-generation serotonin type 3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) containing steroids.. Patients received a single intravenous bolus of palonosetron (0.25 mg) before administration of chemotherapy. Complete response (CR) defined as no vomiting and no rescue therapy during overall phase (0-120 h) was the primary endpoint. Complete control (CC) defined as CR and only mild nausea was a secondary endpoint.. Eighty-six evaluable patients entered in the study. A CR was observed in 74 patients (86.0%) during the overall phase; the CR during the acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) phases was 90.7% and 88.4%, respectively. CC was 89.5% during the acute and 84.9% during the delayed phase; the overall CC was 82.6%.. This was the first trial, which demonstrated the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron in control CINV in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving MEC regimen containing steroids.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dexamethasone; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Young Adult

Explore safety and efficacy of three palonosetron-containing regimens for emesis prevention over 7 days in multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving melphalan (100 mg/m(2)) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).. Randomized, double-blind pilot study in MM patients (n=73) receiving 1, 2, or 3 days of 0.25 mg palonosetron (30-s i.v. bolus) 30 min before melphalan (days -2 and -1) and HSCT (day 0). Patients received dexamethasone (20 mg i.v., days -2 and -1) immediately before or after study drug/placebo. Daily diaries recorded emesis, rescue medication, nausea duration, and adverse events (AEs).. Seven-day complete protection (no emesis) occurred in 41.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 22.1% to 63.4%], 41.7% (95% CI 22.1% to 63.4%), and 44.0% (95% CI 24.2% to 65.1%) of patients receiving 1, 2, or 3 days of palonosetron, respectively (P=0.43). Complete response (emesis free without rescue medication) occurred in 8.3%, 20.8%, and 20.0% (P=0.14). Common AEs (≥10%) were mild-to-moderate diarrhea, constipation, headache, insomnia, and flatulence. No serious AEs occurred.. Palonosetron with dexamethasone was safe and effective in preventing emesis in MM patients receiving melphalan and HSCT. This pilot study with a limited number of patients suggests that multiple doses of palonosetron could be more effective than a single dose in making patients emesis free without need for rescue medication. However, even multiple doses of palonosetron resulted in only 20% of patients being emesis free without rescue medication, suggesting that further improvement will require development of more effective combination antiemetic therapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Melphalan; Middle Aged; Multiple Myeloma; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

The incidence of overall (acute and delayed) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events among patients treated with single- and multi-day low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) is not well established. We studied a cohort of patients receiving LEC and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) versus other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (5-HT(3)-RAs) (Group 2), to determine the overall rate of CINV and the proportion of patients experiencing delayed CINV (days 2-7 of a CT cycle) in a hospital outpatient setting.. Patients aged ≥18 years with cancer diagnosis initiating single-day and multi-day LEC for the first time between 4/1/2007 and 3/31/2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective database. CINV events (ICD-9-CM codes for nausea, vomiting, or volume depletion or CINV-related rescue medications) were assessed descriptively. A generalized linear multivariate regression model was developed, estimating the overall CINV event rate among Group 1 and 2 patients in the follow-up period (first of eight chemotherapy [CT] cycles or 6 months).. In the follow-up period, out of a total of 10,137 overall CINV events (single-day and multi-day LEC), 8783 events (86.6%) were identified in single-day LEC treated patients. Within single-day LEC treated events, in the first cycle, of 3184 events, 2996 (94.1%) events were delayed. Average number of delayed events per patient remained consistent throughout the eight cycles (3.1 [1st cycle] vs. 2.9 [8th cycle]; P = 0.842]). Among 2439 patients on antiemetic prophylaxis with a 5-HT(3)-RA, 10.1% (n = 247) initiated palonosetron. Regression analysis indicated that Group 1 patients (versus Group 2) had a 15.2% reduction in CINV event rate per CT cycle; P = 0.0403. Study limitations include potential lack of generalizability, absence of data on certain confounders including alcohol consumption and prior history of motion sickness, potential underestimation of incidence of uncontrolled CINV, and inability to draw conclusions pertaining to cause and effect relationship.. In this retrospective analysis, delayed CINV comprised a major proportion of overall CINV among cancer diagnosed patients on single-day LEC. Additionally, palonosetron prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower overall CINV event rate versus other 5-HT(3)-RA prophylaxis in single- and multi-day LEC treatment.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Databases, Factual; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Time Factors; Vomiting

We performed a clinical study of a triple-drug combination to evaluate its efficacy to prevent both acute and delayed emesis after high-dose chemotherapy with BEAM (BCNU [carmustine]+etoposide+ARA-C [cytarabine]+melphalan) before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) by comparison with a historical control group of patients treated with dexamethasone (dex) and ondansetron or palonosetron.. We evaluated 96 patients non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (n=54), and Hodgkin's disease (n=42). Evaluated patients received: aprepitant+palonosetron and dex. The observation period started with the initiation of chemotherapy (0 hours) and continued for 24 hours after the completion of the chemotherapy for the acute phase, and during 5 days after finishing chemotherapy for the delayed phase. The response rate to study drugs was evaluated using a four-grade scale based on the degree of control of nausea and vomiting: high, modrate, slightly effective, or not effective.. Patients treated with the three-drug combination showed a significantly higher response rate than those receiving palonosetron or ondasetron (+dex) during the both the acute and the delayed phases: highly effective early+late phases, 82% versus 70% versus 35%; highly effective early phase, 94% versus 70% versus 35%; highly effective late phase, 85% versus 85% versus 50%; highly+moderately effective early phase, 97% versus 70% versus 40%; highly+moderately effective late phase, 97% versus 90% versus 60%, for triple combination, palonosctron with dexamethasone and ondasetron+dex, respectively. All antiemetic regimens were well tolerated. The three-drug combination showed a similar safety profile; adverse events were generally mild and transient.. The triple-drug combination was more effective than ondansetron or palonosetron (+dex) treatments to prevent acute (especially) and delayed nausea and vomiting following BEAM before HSCT.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Carmustine; Cytarabine; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Etoposide; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Hodgkin Disease; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Melphalan; Morpholines; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

To reduce side-effects of corticosteroid-containing antiemetic regimens, tailoring antiemetic schedules to specific requirements of different patients could be of benefit. We evaluated the possibility to reduce the total dose of corticosteroids when palonosetron, a long-acting second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist, is used.. Double-blind, multicentre, noninferiority study of chemotherapy-naive breast cancer patients receiving 0.25 mg palonosetron and 8 mg dexamethasone on day 1, randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 151) or 4 mg b.i.d. dexamethasone (n = 149) on days 2 and 3. Primary end point was complete response (CR) rate (no emesis, no rescue medication) in the overall (days 1-5) period. Secondary end points were CR rates in the acute (day 1) and delayed (days 2-5) periods, rates of no emesis and no nausea and impact on daily functioning (Functional Living Index-Emesis).. Noninferiority between the two treatments was demonstrated by similar CR rates (P = 0.487) in the overall period. Most parameters showed that palonosetron and dexamethasone on day 1 only offer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting protection similar to multiple-day dexamethasone administration.. In patients treated with a single injection of palonosetron on day 1, reducing dexamethasone is an option that is not associated with significant reduction in antiemetic control during the 5-day period or an impact on patient functioning.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Child; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Maximum Tolerated Dose; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Placebos; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Survival Rate; Vomiting; Young Adult

Palonosetron and ondansetron are two selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists that have shown remarkable efficacy in controlling nausea and vomiting following administration of moderately emetic anticancer chemotherapy. Their efficacy is enhanced by the concurrent administration of dexamethasone. In the present study, we aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy of a palonosetron plus dexamethasone (PD) schedule versus an ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OD) schedule.. A randomised, crossover trial was conducted in 30 patients with head and neck cancer who were receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The patients were divided into two groups. In the first cycle, one group was given a PD schedule and the other, an OD schedule. For the subsequent cycle, crossover of the antiemetic schedules was done. The antiemetic effects were evaluated by recording the intensity of nausea and the frequency of vomiting in the acute and delayed phases.. Complete response in the acute phase was observed in 83.3 percent of the patients on the PD schedule and in 80 percent of those on the OD schedule. In the delayed phase, complete response was observed in 76.7 percent and 66.7 percent of the patients on the PD schedule and OD schedule, respectively. The overall rate of complete response was 66.7 percent in the PD group and 46.7 percent in the OD group. In the PD group, there were 73.3 percent of nausea-free patients as opposed to 66.7 percent in the OD group.. The results suggest that the PD schedule was superior to the OD schedule in controlling emesis in cancer chemotherapy, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cross-Over Studies; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Time Factors; Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) can be from various causes, including the use of high-dose cytarabine.. The authors compared 2 schedules of palonosetron versus ondansetron in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with AML receiving high-dose cytarabine. Patients were randomized to: 1) ondansetron, 8 mg intravenously (IV), followed by 24 mg continuous infusion 30 minutes before high-dose cytarabine and until 12 hours after the high-dose cytarabine infusion ended; 2) palonosetron, 0.25 mg IV 30 minutes before chemotherapy, daily from Day 1 of high-dose cytarabine up to Day 5; or 3) palonosetron, 0.25 mg IV 30 minutes before high-dose cytarabine on Days 1, 3, and 5.. Forty-seven patients on ondansetron and 48 patients on each of the palonosetron arms were evaluable for efficacy. Patients in the palonosetron arms achieved higher complete response rates (no emetic episodes plus no rescue medication), but the difference was not statistically significant (ondansetron, 21%; palonosetron on Days 1-5, 31%; palonosetron on Days 1, 3, and 5, 35%; P = .32). Greater than 77% of patients in each arm were free of nausea on Day 1; however, on Days 2 through 5, the proportion of patients without nausea declined similarly in all 3 groups. On Days 6 and 7, significantly more patients receiving palonosetron on Days 1 to 5 were free of nausea (P = .001 and P = .0247, respectively).. The daily assessments of emesis did not show significant differences between the study arms. Patients receiving palonosetron on Days 1 to 5 had significantly less severe nausea and experienced significantly less impact of CINV on daily activities on Days 6 and 7.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cytarabine; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Aim of the present phase II non-randomized study was to verify whether palonosetron might be able to prevent acute and especially delayed CINV for either HEC or MEC, starting from the second chemotherapy cycle, in patients who had failed to respond to a different antiemetic 5-HT(3) antagonist during the first cycle. Stratification factor was age <65 years vs. > or =65 years of patients included. Forty-seven cancer patients (23 elderly and 24 non-elderly) scheduled to receive HEC or MEC regimens who had experienced CINV grade 3-4 during the first chemotherapy course and for whom the same course of chemotherapy regimen was further scheduled were enrolled. Complete response (CR) and complete control (CC) rates for the acute, delayed and overall phases of CINV were not significantly different between elderly and non-elderly patients. Palonosetron was safe: only grade 1-2 toxicities were observed with a peak of 12.9% for asthenia with no significant difference between elderly and non-elderly patients. In conclusion, single dose palonosetron (250 microg) should be considered a safe and effective second generation 5-HT(3) antagonist in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by HEC or MEC, irrespective of patients' age.

Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; 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

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting includes both Acute (0-24 h) and Delayed (24-120 h) components with different physiologic mechanisms. A combination of a serotonin antagonist, a corticosteroid, and an NK-1 antagonist has proven effective against this problem. However, standard antiemetic regimens require administration over 3-4 days after chemotherapy. The present study evaluated a more convenient single-day three-drug antiemetic regimen for patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors receiving cyclophosphamide and/or doxorubicin were eligible. Patients could not have pre-existing etiologies for vomiting. Prior to chemotherapy, patients received a single dose of aprepitant 285 mg p.o., dexamethasone 20 mg p.o., and palonosetron 0.25 mg i.v. A daily patient diary recording episodes of emesis and severity of nausea was then kept for 5 days. Any further antiemetics were considered rescue medication.. Forty-one eligible and evaluable patients (40 women, one man) with breast cancer were entered on study. Most were receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Complete Response (no vomiting, no rescue medication) was seen in 51% of patients, including 76% with Complete Response for the Acute period and 66% for the Delayed period. No emesis was reported for 100% of patients in the Acute period and 95% in the Delayed period. No Nausea was seen in 32% of patients. No untoward toxicities were seen.. A single-day three-drug antiemetic regimen is feasible and effective for protection against both Acute and Delayed vomiting after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Formal comparison to a standard multi-day antiemetic regimen is warranted.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Breast Neoplasms; Breast Neoplasms, Male; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Doxorubicin; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Time Factors; Vomiting

Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonist that has shown better efficacy than ondansetron and dolasetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and similar efficacy to ondansetron in preventing CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, stratified, parallel-group, active-comparator trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus granisetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, both of which were administered with dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.. Between July 5, 2006, and May 31, 2007, 1143 patients with cancer who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ie, cisplatin, or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide combination [AC/EC]) were recruited from 75 institutions in Japan, and randomly assigned to either single-dose palonosetron (0.75 mg), or granisetron (40 microg/kg) 30 min before chemotherapy on day 1, both with dexamethasone (16 mg intravenously) on day 1 followed by additional doses (8 mg intravenously for patients receiving cisplatin or 4 mg orally for patients receiving AC/EC) on days 2 and 3. A non-deterministic minimisation method with a stochastic-biased coin was applied to the randomisation of patients. Covariates known to effect emetic risk, such as sex, age, and type of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, were used as stratification factors of minimisation to ensure balance between the treatment groups. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the acute phase (0-24 h postchemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with granisetron) and the proportion of patients with a complete response during the delayed phase (24-120 h postchemotherapy; superiority comparison with granisetron). The non-inferiority margin was predefined in the study protocol as a 10% difference between groups in the proportion of patients with complete response. The palonosetron dose of 0.75 mg was chosen on the basis of two dose-determining trials in Japanese patients. All patients who received study treatment and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in the efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359567.. 1114 patients were included in the efficacy analyses: 555 patients in the palonosetron group and 559 patients in the granisetron group. 418 of 555 patients (75.3%) in the palonosetron group had complete response during the acute phase compared with 410 of 559 patients (73.3%) in the granisetron group (mean difference 2.9% [95% CI -2.70 to 7.27]). During the delayed phase, 315 of 555 patients (56.8%) had complete response in the palonosetron group compared with 249 of 559 patients (44.5%) in the granisetron group (p<0.0001). The main treatment-related adverse events were constipation (97 of 557 patients [17.4%] in the palonosetron group vs 88 of 562 [15.7%] in the granisetron group) and raised concentrations of serum aminotransferases (aspartate aminotransferase: 24 of 557 [4.3%] vs 34 of 562 [6.0%]; alanine aminotransferase: 16 of 557 [2.9%] vs 33 of 562 [5.9%]); no grade 4 main treatment-related adverse events were reported.. When administered with dexamethasone before highly emetogenic chemotherapy, palonosetron exerts efficacy against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting which is non-inferior to that of granisetron in the acute phase and better than that of granisetron in the delayed phase, with a comparable safety profile for the two treatments.. Taiho Pharmaceutical (Tokyo, Japan).

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of a single-dose palonosetron plus dexamethasone to control emesis in patients (pts) receiving HEC. Moreover, we evaluated the amount of their food intake (FI) in the week following therapy, in order to measure any reduction of calories consumption related to Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).. Patients affected with advanced cancer were treated with palonosetron 250 mcg plus dexamethasone 20 mg before HEC. Nausea, vomiting, and FI were monitored by a 7-day diary. Complete Response (CR: no vomiting and no rescue therapy) was the primary endpoint, Complete Control (CC: CR and no more than mild nausea) and the evaluation of FI were the secondary endpoints. The endpoints were evaluated during the acute (0-24 h), the delayed (25-168 h) and overall (0-168 h) phases.. Thirty-five patients were enrolled; 85.7% and 82.9% of patients achieved CR and CC respectively, during the acute phase; 82.9% and 77.1% of patients achieved CR and CC, during the delayed phase; 80% and 77.1% of patients achieved CR and CC, during the overall phase. During the acute phase, patients with a CC without nausea had a median daily FI of 1,575 kcal, whereas patients with CC and presence of mild nausea had a median daily FI of 1,040 kcal (-535 kcal; p < 0.0001).. Our preliminary results confirm the efficacy of a single-dose palonosetron plus dexamethasone to prevent both acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. Moreover, the efficacy of palonosetron in nausea and vomiting control seems to warrant adequate caloric intake in these patients.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Eating; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

This is a randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of palonosetron, in combination with dexamethasone.. We randomized 233 patients to receive palonosetron as a single i.v. bolus dose of 0.075, 0.25, or 0.75 mg before administration of HEC. Dexamethasone (12-16 mg i.v. on day 1, 8 mg i.v. on day 2, and 4-8 mg i.v. on day 3) was administered for prophylactic antiemesis. Pharmacokinetics of palonosetron was analyzed in 24 patients.. In this study, all patients were given > or =50 mg/m(2) cisplatin, which was considered to be HEC. No significant differences in complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) rates were found in the first 24 h between the 0.075-, 0.25-, and 0.75-mg groups (77.6%, 81.8%, and 79.5%, respectively). In the 120-h period of overall observation, CR rates increased in a dose-dependent manner. In the 0.75-mg group, we observed a significantly longer time to treatment failure than in the 0.075-mg group (median time >120 versus 82.0 h, P = 0.038). Palonosetron was tolerated well and did not show any dose-related increase in adverse effects.. Palonosetron at doses of 0.25 and 0.75 mg was shown to be effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with high CR rates of patients treated with HEC in Japan. All tested doses of palonosetron were tolerated well.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Area Under Curve; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting; Young Adult

The 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (RAs) help maintain the standard of care, in various combinations with other agents, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Palonosetron is a new generation 5-HT(3) RA with indication not only acute but also delayed nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). This study was carried out to determine the optimal dosage of palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone in patients in Japan.. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in patients receiving MEC combined with dexamethasone. Patients received single doses of 0.075, 0.25, or 0.75 mg of palonosetron before MEC. Dexamethasone was infused before palonosetron, at 20 mg for the patients receiving paclitaxel (Taxol) and 8 mg for the patients not receiving paclitaxel. The primary end point was complete response (CR: no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) in the acute phase (0-24 h).. In total, 204 patients (88 men, 116 women; 96 with paclitaxel, 108 without paclitaxel) were assessable for efficacy. No dose-response relationship was observed regarding the CR rate in the acute phase. CR rates increased dose dependently for delayed (24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases in patients receiving anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide combination (AC/EC, n = 80); however, the difference in CR rates among doses was not statistically significant. The most commonly reported adverse events related to palonosetron were constipation and headache, confirming the class safety profile.. This study indicates a statistically nonsignificant trend for the dose-response relationship for antiemetic protection in the delayed and overall phases in AC/EC patients (the regimen currently considered to be more emetogenic than MEC).

Topics: Adult; Aged; Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Asian People; Cyclophosphamide; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Emesis and nausea are common adverse effects of chemotherapy. Consequences include dehydration, acute renal failure, esophageal rupture, electrolyte imbalance and undernutrition, among others. First-generation 5-HT3 antagonists significantly reduce these symptoms but are expensive and require administration every 8-12h. Palonosetron, a second generation 5-HT3 antagonist has proven better results in adult populations. Other benefits include a one-dose administration with effect for up to 7 days and a lower treatment cost. No clinical studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of palonosetron in children.. Prior to every course, patients were randomized to receive palonosetron or ondansetron. Patients or guardians recorded the number of emetic events and the intensity of nausea over a 7-day period. They also reported any possible adverse effects. Statistical analysis included chi(2) test, relative risk, and Student's t test.. Fifty courses were analyzed for each group. There was a significant reduction in emesis on the first 3 days and in the intensity of nausea in the first four days in the palonosetron group. There was an increased risk of presenting emesis and nausea in the acute phase when treated with ondansetron. No adverse effects were reported. The cost of treatment was also reduced when using palonosetron.. Palonosetron is a safe and effective antiemetic treatment in children, as well as being cost effective.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Child; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

The combination of palonosetron and aprepitant is safe and effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis (CIE). The purpose of this pilot study was to ascertain the effectiveness of 1-day versus 3-day aprepitant in the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.. This study was institutional review board-approved and informed consent was obtained before this study was begun. This was a pilot, single-institution, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that evaluated 3 different treatment arms. All groups received palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously on Day 1 and dexamethasone on Days 1-4. Arm A received aprepitant 125 mg orally on Day 1 followed by 80 mg on Days 2-3. Arm B received aprepitant 125 mg orally on Day 1 and placebo on Days 2-3. Arm C received placebos on Days 1-3. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the proportion of patients with acute and delayed emesis within each group.. Seventy-five patients were included in the analysis. The study commenced with 3 groups; however, an interim analysis displayed unacceptable emesis events in Arm C, and this group was terminated. There were no significant differences between Arms A and B for emesis, nausea, or the use of breakthrough antiemetics. In Arms A and B, 93% of patients were emesis-free from Days 1-5 compared with only 50% in Arm C.. From this pilot study of patients who were receiving palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, a single dose of aprepitant displayed similar effectiveness compared with 3-day aprepitant.

Topics: Acute Disease; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pilot Projects; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

The purpose of this study is to determine the control of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) with the combined use of palonosetron and olanzapine, and dexamethasone with the dexamethasone given on day 1 only.. Forty chemotherapy-naive patients received on the day of chemotherapy, day 1, an anti-emetic regimen consisting of dexamethasone, palonosetron, and olanzapine. Patients continued olanzapine for days 2-4 after chemotherapy administration. Patients recorded daily episodes of emesis, daily symptoms utilizing the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory, and the utilization of rescue therapy.. For the first cycle of chemotherapy, the complete response (no emesis, no rescue) for the acute period (24 h post-chemotherapy) was 100%, the delayed period (days 2-5 post-chemotherapy) 75%, and the overall period (0 120 h post-chemotherapy) 75% in 8 patients receiving HEC and was 97, 75, and 72% in 32 patients receiving MEC. Patients with no nausea for the acute period was 100%, the delayed period 50%, and the overall period 50% in 8 patients receiving HEC and was 100, 78, and 78% in 32 patients receiving MEC.. The complete response and control of nausea in subsequent cycles of chemotherapy were not significantly different from cycle one.. Olanzapine combined with a single dose of dexamethasone and a single dose of palonosetron was very effective in controlling acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving both HEC and MEC.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Olanzapine; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; United States; Vomiting

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

This pivotal phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).. Patients were randomized to a single intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg or 0.75 mg, or ondansetron 32 mg prior to HEC. Dexamethasone pre-treatment (with stratification) was used at investigator discretion. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR) during the first 24 h post-chemotherapy (acute phase).. In the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 667), palonosetron 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg were at least as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV (59.2%, 65.5%, and 57.0% CR rates, respectively); CR rates were slightly higher with palonosetron than ondansetron during the delayed (24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases. Two thirds of patients (n = 447) received concomitant dexamethasone. Patients pre-treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg plus dexamethasone had significantly higher CR rates than those receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the delayed (42.0% versus 28.6%) and overall (40.7% versus 25.2%) phases. Palonosetron and ondansetron were well tolerated.. Single-dose palonosetron was as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV following HEC, and with dexamethasone pre-treatment, its effectiveness was significantly increased over ondansetron throughout the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Routes; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The objective of this multicenter, phase II, open-label study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the newest 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, palonosetron, plus dexamethasone and aprepitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Eligible patients received a single intravenous dose of palonosetron (0.25 mg on day 1 of chemotherapy), along with 3 daily oral doses of aprepitant (125 mg on day 1,80 mg on days 2 and 3) and dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1,8 mg on days 2 and 3). Efficacy and safety data were obtained from patient diaries and adverse event reporting. Fifty-eight patients were evaluable; 47% were women with breast cancer and 52% received cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. The proportion of patients with complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication) was 88% during the acute (0-24 hours) interval, 78% during the delayed (> 24-120 hours) interval, and 78% during the overall (0-120 hours post chemotherapy) interval. More than 90% of patients during all time intervals had no emetic episodes, and between 57% and 71% of patients reported no nausea during each of the 5 days post chemotherapy. Treatment was well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events. These data demonstrate that palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone and aprepitant is safe and highly effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the days following administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are the foundation of standard antiemetic care for cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy. To enhance the efficacy of these supportive care agents, dexamethasone is routinely admixed with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, which is administered by intravenous infusion before chemotherapy begins. This phase II study evaluated the safety and efficacy of intravenous palonosetron admixed with dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Cancer patients received palonosetron 0.25 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg admixed in 50 mL of infusion solution before receiving at least one qualifying chemotherapeutic agent (cyclophosphamide < or = 1,500 mg/m2, doxorubicin > or = 20 mg/m2, carboplatin, or oxaliplatin). Patients used diaries to record nausea and emesis experienced and rescue medications used. Of 32 participants, 27 (84%) had a complete response (no emesis and no rescue medication) during the acute (0-24 hours) interval posttherapy, 19 (59%) had a complete response during the delayed (> 24-120 hours) posttherapeutic interval, and 19 (59%) had a complete response during the overall (0-120 hours) posttreatment interval. A total of 23 patients (72%) had no emetic episodes, 16 (50%) had no nausea, and 21 (66%) used no rescue medication throughout the overall 5-day interval. The combination was well tolerated. Palonosetron plus dexamethasone given as a pretreatment infusion is effective and safe in preventing acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Doxorubicin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Severity of Illness Index; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Although currently available 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor (5-HT3) antagonists are effective, not all patients receiving these agents achieve adequate control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Palonosetron, a potent and highly selective 5-HT3 antagonist with a strong affinity for 5-HT3 and a prolonged plasma elimination half-life, may provide a longer duration of action than other approved agents.. One hundred and sixty-one patients were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous bolus dose of palonosetron (0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30 or 90 microg/kg) before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, with no pretreatment with corticosteroids.. The four highest doses of palonosetron were similarly effective during the first 24 h, producing clearly higher complete response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue medication) rates in the 3, 10, 30 and 90 microg/kg groups (46%, 40%, 50% and 46%, respectively) than in the 0.3-1 microg/kg group (24%) of evaluable patients (n = 148). The 3 microg/kg dose was identified as the lowest effective dose. A single dose of palonosetron showed prolonged efficacy in preventing delayed emesis, with approximately one-third of patients who received palonosetron 10 or 30 microg/kg maintaining a CR throughout the 7-day period following chemotherapy administration. Dose-proportional increases in pharmacokinetic parameters and a long plasma half-life (43.7-128 h) were observed. Palonosetron was well-tolerated, with no dose-response effect evident for the incidence or intensity of adverse events.. Palonosetron is an effective and well-tolerated agent for the prevention of CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy, with 3 and 10 microg/kg identified as the lowest effective palonosetron doses.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Palonosetron is a potent and highly selective serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist that has been evaluated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. black triangle Intravenously administered palonosetron has a linear pharmacokinetic profile, with a long terminal elimination half-life ( approximate, equals 40 hours) and moderate (62%) plasma protein binding. In two randomised, double-blind trials in 1132 cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg was more effective than intravenous ondansetron 32 mg in producing a complete response (no emesis, no use of rescue medication) during acute (0-24 hours) or delayed (24-120 hours) phases, and similar to intravenous dolasetron 100 mg in acute, but more effective in delayed phase. Palonosetron 0.75 mg was similar to ondansetron (acute and delayed phase) or dolasetron (acute phase), but more effective than dolasetron in delayed phase. In patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (n = 667), the complete response rates during acute and delayed phases with intravenous palonosetron (0.25 or 0.75 mg) were similar to those seen in intravenous ondansetron 32 mg recipients in a randomised, double-blind trial. Intravenous palonosetron was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, with few adverse events being treatment related. Palonosetron had no significant effect on the corrected QT interval or laboratory parameters.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Although all first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists demonstrate efficacy in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), effective prevention of delayed CINV has not yet been achieved. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron, a novel, second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, with ondansetron.. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, stratified, phase III study, 570 adult cancer patients were randomized to receive a single i.v. dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg, palonosetron 0.75 mg or ondansetron 32 mg, each administered 30 min before initiation of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with no emetic episodes and no rescue medication [complete response (CR)] during the 24 h after chemotherapy administration (acute period). Secondary end points included efficacy in treatment of delayed CINV (

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

This post-hoc analysis retrospectively assessed data from two recent studies of antiemetic regimens for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The primary objective was to compare olanzapine-based versus netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA)-based regimens in terms of controlling CINV during cycle 1 of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy; secondary objectives were to assess quality of life (QOL) and emesis outcomes over four cycles of AC.. This study included 120 Chinese patients with early-stage breast cancer who were receiving AC; 60 patients received the olanzapine-based antiemetic regimen, whereas 60 patients received the NEPA-based antiemetic regimen. The olanzapine-based regimen comprised aprepitant, ondansetron, dexamethasone, and olanzapine; the NEPA-based regimen comprised NEPA and dexamethasone. Patient outcomes were compared in terms of emesis control and QOL.. During cycle 1 of AC, the olanzapine group exhibited a higher rate of 'no use of rescue therapy' in the acute phase (olanzapine vs NEPA: 96.7% vs 85.0%, P=0.0225). No parameters differed between groups in the delayed phase. The olanzapine group had significantly higher rates of 'no use of rescue therapy' (91.7% vs 76.7%, P=0.0244) and 'no significant nausea' (91.7% vs 78.3%, P=0.0408) in the overall phase. There were no differences in QOL between groups. Multiple cycle assessment revealed that the NEPA group had higher rates of total control in the acute phase (cycles 2 and 4) and the overall phase (cycles 3 and 4).. These results do not conclusively support the superiority of either regimen for patients with breast cancer who are receiving AC.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Nausea; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a recognized adverse outcome among patients with cancer. This retrospective study aimed to quantify the treatment outcomes, resource utilization, and costs associated with antiemetic use to prevent CINV in a broad US population who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy.. Data from the STATinMED RWD Insights Database was collected from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Cohorts included any patients that had at least one claim for fosnetupitant + palonosetron (NEPA) or fosaprepitant + palonosetron (APPA) and evidence of initiating cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to evaluate nausea and vomiting visits within 14 days after chemotherapy, and generalized linear models were used to examine all-cause and CINV-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs.. NEPA was associated with significantly lower rates of nausea and vomiting visits after chemotherapy (p = 0.0001), including 86% greater odds of nausea and vomiting events for APPA during the second week after chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; p = 0.0003). The mean numbers of all-cause inpatient visits (p = 0.0195) and CINV-related inpatient and outpatient visits were lower among NEPA patients (p < 0.0001). These differences corresponded to 57% of NEPA patients and 67% of APPA patients having one or more inpatient visits (p = 0.0002). All-cause outpatient costs and CINV-related inpatient costs were also significantly lower for NEPA (p < 0.0001). The mean number of all-cause outpatient visits, all-cause inpatient costs, and CINV-related outpatient costs was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05).. In this retrospective study based on claims data, NEPA was associated with lower rates of nausea and vomiting and lower CINV-related HCRU and costs compared to APPA following cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These results complement clinical trial data and published economic models supporting the use of NEPA as a safe, effective, and cost-saving antiemetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cisplatin; Delivery of Health Care; Gastrointestinal Agents; Humans; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, is associated with poor control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether using palonosetron (PALO) as a 5HT3RA provides superior control with CINV than first-generation (1st) 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with a DEX-sparing strategy.. Pooled patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, and prospective observational study were analyzed to compare the incidence of CINV between patients administered PALO and 1st 5HT3RA in combination with 1-day DEX and APR.. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CINV, pattern of CINV, or severity of nausea by type of 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with DEX-sparing strategy. In both groups, the incidence of nausea gradually increased from day 3, peaked on day 4 or 5, and then declined slowly. The visual analog scale scores in the delayed phase remained high throughout the 7-day observation period.. Careful patient selection and symptom monitoring are needed when implementing the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis for patients undergoing CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, additional strategies may be needed to achieve better control of delayed CINV.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Carboplatin; Dexamethasone; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Humans; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

A large proportion of cancer patients are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but the choice of anti-emetics for CINV in Malaysia is limited.. This was a real-world study of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) to inhibit CINV in adult patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for solid/hematological malignancies at eight Malaysian centers. Each HEC/MEC cycle received one dose of NEPA + dexamethasone for CINV prevention. Complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication) (CR), no more than mild nausea (severity score ≤ 2.5), and complete control (CR) (no more than mild nausea) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy were measured. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were recorded.. During March 2016-April 2018 (NMRR-17-3286-38282), NEPA + dexamethasone was administered to 54 patients (77.8% solid, 22.2% hematological malignancies). Note that 59.3% received HEC, while 40.7% received MEC regimen. During the overall phase of the first cycle, the majority had CR (77.8%), no more than mild nausea (74.1%), and complete control (61.1%). Seventeen patients received two consecutive cycles at any point of chemotherapy cycles. During the overall phases across two consecutive cycles, all patients achieved CR, and the majority reported no more than mild nausea and complete control. No grades 3-4 AEs were reported.. NEPA had sustained efficacy and tolerability at first administration and across two cycles of MEC/HEC for CINV prevention.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzeneacetamides; Dexamethasone; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Nausea; Palonosetron; Piperazines; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Cost-effectiveness analyses that consider all currently used antiemetics in the case of emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have not been performed yet. We aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine (OLA), or/and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1-RAs), in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) in preventing highly emetogenic CINV.. Two decision analytic models were constructed. The first model was based on overall complete response (CR); the second model was based on rate of absence of nausea. Four antiemetic regimens PAL + DEX, NK-1-RAs + PAL + DEX, OLA + PAL + DEX, and PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA were compared in terms of cost, overall CR and rate of absence of nausea. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates were calculated. The study was from the US payer perspective.. In terms of CR, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest gains in the percentage of CR among all treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $4220 versus PAL + DEX, $4656 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $16,471 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. In term of rate of absence of nausea, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest rate of absence of nausea among all the treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $2291 versus PAL + DEX, $1304 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $2657 versus OLA + PAL + DEX.. from an economic perspective, our study revealed that whether to use overall CR or/and rate of absence of nausea as determinants in the antiemetic decision for the CINV patients, the CR-based-, and rate of absence of nausea-based cost-effectiveness analyses, showed negotiable ICER estimates for the treatment PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA over the combinations PAL + DEX, NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, and OLA + PAL + DEX regimens.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dexamethasone; Humans; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

A triple antiemetic therapy combining aprepitant (APR) with conventional double antiemetic therapy, including 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃-RA) and dexamethasone (DEX), is recommended for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting induced by a carboplatin (CBDCA) regimen. However, consensus on the additive effects of APR for gynecological patients on a combined regimen of paclitaxel and CBDCA (TC regimen) has yet to be reached. This retrospective study investigated the antiemetic effects of palonosetron and DEX (PD therapy) and granisetron and DEX with APR (GDA therapy) in patients with gynecologic cancer and who underwent their first TC regimen cycle between April 2017 and March 2020 at the Gunma University Hospital Outpatient Chemotherapy Center. The results showed that the complete response rate of the 92 patients who underwent PD therapy (PD group) and the 46 patients who underwent GDA therapy (GDA group) were both 80.4% (p = 1.000), and the complete control rates of the PD and GDA groups were 78.3% and 80.4%, respectively (p = 0.828), resulting in no significant difference. Furthermore, we observed no significant difference between the PD and GDA groups in the incidence of grade ≥2 nausea, vomiting, and anorexia (nausea: 7.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.095; vomiting: 4.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.301; and anorexia: 9.8% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.164). Concerning adverse events, compared to the PD group, the GDA group showed significantly higher incidence of grade ≥2 malaise (7.6% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.039). Given the lack of difference in the antiemetic effects of PD and GDA therapies, antiemetic therapy should be selected carefully for individual patients by accounting for the incidence of adverse reactions and interactions with APR.

Topics: Anorexia; Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Carboplatin; Dexamethasone; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Nausea; Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

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.. 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.. 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.. 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: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Emetics; Humans; Internationality; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Combination therapy using multiple antiemetic drugs is recommended for intravenous administration of cisplatin, a highly emetogenic agent, whereas a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist alone is commonly used in hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin for hepatocellular carcinoma owing to its less toxicity than that in the intravenous administration. Given that optimal antiemetic therapy is not yet established, we retrospectively investigated the efficacy of antiemetic drugs for hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin. This study enrolled 72 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who received hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin at Kurashiki Central Hospital between January 2011 and May 2019. A 5-HT3 receptor antagonist was used in all cases, while aprepitant and/or dexamethasone were used concomitantly in 6 cases. After chemotherapy, a complete response rate for 5 days was achieved in 73.6% of the patients; however, complete control could be achieved only in 29.2%. During these 5 days, both rates were lower on days 2-5 than on day 1. In addition, younger age was associated with worse control rates. Our findings suggest that more effective antiemetic therapy is needed for hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin, especially in non-elderly patients.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent adverse events compromising quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, CINV prophylaxis is still lacking uniformity for high-dose melphalan (HDM), which is used to condition patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is administered with dexamethasone (DEXA) for CINV prevention in several chemotherapy regimens. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of NEPA, without DEXA, in preventing CINV in 106 adult patients with MM receiving HDM and ASCT. All patients had antiemetic prophylaxis with multiple doses of NEPA 1 h before the start of conditioning and after 72 h and 120 h. A complete response (CR) was observed in 99 (93%) patients at 120 h (overall phase). The percentage of patients with complete control was 93%. The CR rate during the acute phase was 94% (n = 100). During the delayed phase, the CR rate was 95% (n = 101). Grade 1 nausea and vomiting were experienced by 82% and 12% of the patients, respectively. Grade 2 nausea was reported in 18% and vomiting in 10% of patients. Our results showed, for the first time, that NEPA, without DEXA, was a well-tolerated and effective antiemetic option for MM patients receiving HDM followed by ASCT.

Topics: Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Melphalan; Multiple Myeloma; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Transplantation, Autologous; Vomiting

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the treatment of cancer patients, with particular regard to the management of both chemotherapy and side effects. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are amongst the most troublesome side effects that impair patients' adherence to treatments and their quality of life (QoL). NEPA (Akynzeo®), is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant [a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), 300 mg] and palonosetron [(5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin or 5HT) type3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA), 0.5 mg] which has been shown to be effective in preventing CINV.. This prospective study started before the outbreak of COVID-19 and was carried out during the pandemic period. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose NEPA plus 12 mg of dexamethasone (DEX) in patients treated with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab and Folfirinox. The patients were diagnosed with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). They were divided into two groups: naïve patients and patients previously treated with serotonin receptor antagonists (5HT3-RA) and neurokin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RA).. During the overall phase, the complete response (CR) rate was 96.8% in naïve patients treated with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab, and 94.6% in patients treated with Folfirinox. During the acute and delayed phases, the CR rate was 92.8% and 94.2%, with Folfoxiri and Bevacizumab, as well as 96.2% and 94.6%, with Folfirinox. There was no adequate control of CINV events in patients on antiemetic prophylaxis with 5HT3-RA or NK1-RA associated with cortisone. During the overall phase, the CR rate was 74.6% with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab and 75.8% with Folfirinox. During the acute and delayed phases, the CR rate was 72.5% and 74.8% with Folfoxiri plus Bevacizumab, as well as 75.2% and 74.6% with Folfirinox.. This study has shown the therapeutic benefits of NEPA in the management and prophylaxis of CINV events, both in naive patients and patients previously treated with 5HT3-RA and NK1-RA. In addition, NEPA has been shown to be safe, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Colorectal Neoplasms; COVID-19; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Oxaliplatin; Palonosetron; Pandemics; Prospective Studies; Pyridines; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may affect adherence to planned chemotherapy treatments and compromise patients' quality of life during the therapy. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of netupitant, a highly-selective NK. Eligible patients were undergoing carboplatin and gemcitabine combination chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), ovarian cancer or urothelial cancer and experienced nausea and/or vomiting after the first cycle of chemotherapy, despite an antiemetic prophylaxis with a 5HT. During the first cycle of chemotherapy, 15 out of 30 (50%) patients did not properly control CINV with a 5HT. Our experience showed that NEPA has proven to be very effective and well tolerated in the prophylaxis of CINV induced by carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Carboplatin; Deoxycytidine; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Gemcitabine; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; Pyridines; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Failure; Vomiting

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

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

Nausea, vomiting, and renal injury are the common adverse effects associated with cisplatin. Cisplatin is excreted via the multidrug and toxin release (MATE) transporter, and the involvement of the MATE transporter in cisplatin-induced kidney injury has been reported. The MATE transporter is also involved in the excretion of ondansetron, but the effects of 5-HT

Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Aged; Animals; Benzimidazoles; Cisplatin; Disease Models, Animal; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Kidney; Male; Mice; Middle Aged; Nausea; Ondansetron; Organic Cation Transport Proteins; Palonosetron; Renal Elimination; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Injections, Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

There are several studies on premedication to prevent postembolization syndromes which occurs after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), but the medication to be used is still not established. This study aimed to examine the effect of palonosetron and dexamethasone on the prevention of gastrointestinal symptoms induced by TACE.. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who were treated with TACE with epirubicin were retrospectively evaluated. The complete response rate of antiemetic drugs and incidence and severity of gastrointestinal symptoms were compared between the antiemetic group (AE group), which includes 51 patients prophylactically administered with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone 9.9 mg intravenously before TACE on day 1 and dexamethasone 6.6 mg intravenously on days 2 and 3, and control group with 101 patients without antiemetic premedication.. Complete response rate in the entire evaluation period was significantly higher in the AE group compared with that in the control group. In the acute phase, the incidence and severity of nausea, vomiting, and anorexia significantly decreased in the AE group, but only anorexia improved in the delay phase. Additionally, postembolization syndromes, such as abdominal pain and fever, were significantly attenuated in the AE group; however, constipation worsened in this group.. Premedication of palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly prevents the incidence and reduces the severity of gastrointestinal symptoms especially in the acute phase. Further studies will be needed to determine the most recommended 5-HT

Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Aged; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antiemetics; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Dexamethasone; Epirubicin; Female; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common treatment-related adverse event that negatively impacts the quality of life of cancer patients. During pediatric drug development, extrapolation of efficacy from adult to pediatric populations is a pathway that can minimize the exposure of children to unnecessary clinical trials, improve efficiency, and increase the likelihood of success in obtaining a pediatric indication. The acceptability of the use of extrapolation depends on a series of evidence-based assumptions regarding the similarity of disease, response to intervention, and exposure-response relationships between adult and pediatric patients. This study evaluated publicly available summaries of data submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for drugs approved for CINV to assess the feasibility of extrapolation for future development programs. Extracted data included trial design, emetogenic potential of chemotherapy, primary end points, participant enrollment criteria, and antiemetic pharmacokinetics. Adult and pediatric clinical trial designs for assessment of efficacy and safety shared key design elements. Antiemetic drugs found to be efficacious in adults were also efficacious in pediatric patients. Systemic drug concentrations at approved doses were similar for ondansetron, granisetron, and aprepitant, but an exposure-response analysis of palonosetron in children suggested that higher palonosetron systemic exposure is necessary for the prevention of CINV in the pediatric population. For 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist antiemetic drugs, efficacy in adults predicts efficacy in children, supporting the extrapolation of effectiveness of an antiemetic product in children from adequate and well-controlled studies in adult patients with CINV.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Trials as Topic; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Dosage Calculations; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Infant; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Treatment Outcome; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration; Vomiting; Young Adult

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be a serious and debilitating adverse effect that is highly feared by cancer patients. For patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens at our institution in the ambulatory infusion center, palonosetron was selected as the preferred serotonin (5-HT3) antagonist for CINV prophylaxis per the 2016 NCCN Guidelines, when a neurokinin1 antagonist was not included in the prophylactic regimen. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone and palonosetron versus granisetron for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.. This study is an Institutional Review Board-approved, single-center retrospective review of electronic health records including patients who received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens with CINV prophylaxis with dexamethasone and either palonosetron or granisetron.. Despite palonosetron's better efficacy, longer half-life, and higher binding affinity, the results of this retrospective review demonstrates that the choice of serotonin antagonist, palonosetron or granisetron, did not result in a change in day 1 intravenous prophylactic antiemetics or antiemetic outpatient medications for patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

Topics: Academic Medical Centers; Administration, Intravenous; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting; Young Adult

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Male; Melphalan; Middle Aged; Multiple Myeloma; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Pyridines; Transplantation Conditioning; Transplantation, Autologous; Vomiting

To assess, from a United States (US) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis using a single dose of netupitant and palonosetron in a fixed combination (NEPA) versus aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN), each in combination with dexamethasone, in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).. We analyzed patient-level outcomes over a 5-day post-HEC period from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial of NEPA (n = 412) versus APR + GRAN (n = 416). Costs and CINV-related utilities were assigned to each subject using published sources. Parameter uncertainty was addressed via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).. Compared to APR + GRAN, NEPA resulted in a gain of 0.09 quality-adjusted life-days (QALDs) (4.04 vs 3.95; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.25) and a significant total per-patient cost reduction of $309 ($943 vs $1252; 95% CI $4-$626), due principally to $258 in lower medical costs of CINV-related events ($409 vs $668; 95% CI -$46 to $572) and $45 in lower study drug costs ($531 vs $577). In the PSA, NEPA resulted in lower costs and higher QALD in 86.5% of cases and cost ≤ $25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in 97.8% of cases.. This first-ever economic analysis using patient-level data from a phase 3 trial comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) antiemetic regimens suggests that NEPA is highly cost-effective (and in fact cost-saving) versus an aprepitant-based regimen in post-HEC CINV prevention. Actual savings may be higher, as we focused only on the first chemotherapy cycle and omitted the impact of CINV-related chemotherapy discontinuation.

Topics: Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Vomiting

NEPA is the first fixed-combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant (netupitant; 300 mg) and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (palonosetron; 0.50 mg). This study evaluated the pharmacokinetic profiles of netupitant and palonosetron. The pharmacokinetic profiles of both drugs were summarized using data from phase 1-3 clinical trials. netupitant and palonosetron have high absolute bioavailability (63%-87% and 97%, respectively). Their overall systemic exposures and maximum plasma concentrations are similar under fed and fasting conditions. netupitant binds to plasma proteins in a high degree (>99%), whereas palonosetron binds to a low extent (62%). Both drugs have large volumes of distribution (cancer patients: 1656-2257 L and 483-679 L, respectively). netupitant is metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4 to 3 major pharmacologically active metabolites (M1, M2, and M3). palonosetron is metabolized by cytochrome P450 2D6 to 2 major substantially inactive metabolites (M4 and M9). Both drugs have similar intermediate-to-low systemic clearances and long half-lives (cancer patients: netupitant, 19.5-20.8 L/h and 56.0-93.8 hours; palonosetron: 7.0-11.3 L/h and 43.8-65.7 hours, respectively). netupitant and its metabolites are eliminated via the hepatic/biliary route (87% of the administered dose), whereas palonosetron and its metabolites are mainly eliminated via the kidneys (85%-93%). Altogether, these data explain the lack of pharmacokinetic interactions between netupitant and palonosetron at absorption, binding, metabolic, or excretory level, thus highlighting their compatibility as the oral fixed combination NEPA, with administration convenience that may reduce dosing mistakes and increase treatment compliance.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Biological Availability; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Drug Combinations; Humans; Nausea; Neoplasms; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting diminishes quality of life and increases healthcare resource use. This retrospective medical records analysis evaluated hydration requirements with emetogenic chemotherapy.. Cancer patients received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), and antiemetics palonosetron or granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Unscheduled hydration event rates were determined.. For 186 patients (92 palonosetron, 94 GERSC) overall, mean hydration rate was significantly higher with palonosetron (0.6 vs 0.2; p = 0.0005). Proportion of patients with ≥1 hydration event was significantly higher with palonosetron overall (54 vs 33%; p = 0.0033) and in cycles 2-4 and the HEC subgroup.. GERSC within a three-drug antiemetic regimen may reduce unscheduled hydration requirements with MEC or HEC.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Delayed-Action Preparations; Dexamethasone; Female; Fluid Therapy; Granisetron; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting; Young Adult

Nausea is more difficult to control than vomiting in chemotherapy. We therefore analyzed the efficacy of a strong supportive treatment with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone against nausea for various moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).. A total of 312 cases treated by palonosetron with or without aprepitant receiving MEC regimens using oxaliplatin, carboplatin, and irinotecan from 2014 to 2016 in our outpatient center for digestive organ cancers, lung cancers, and gynecological cancers were analyzed. Through propensity score matching analysis, cases were divided into 97 cases receiving 2 drugs (palonosetron+dexamethasone) and 97 receiving 3 drugs (aprepitant+palonosetron+dexamethasone). We examined the control rates of nausea for the first two consecutive courses in the both groups. Additionally, risk factors for acute and delayed nausea were analyzed using a multivariate analysis among overall 312 cases.. The control rates of nausea in the two- and the three-drug groups were as follows: acute, 92.8 and 95.9% (p = 0.35); and delayed, 83.5 and 81.4% (p = 0.85), although the control rates of vomiting exceeded 95% in both groups. A multivariate analysis showed that significant risk factors for acute nausea (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) were elevation of serum creatinine (12.601, 2.437-65.157), general fatigue (3.728, 1.098-12.661), and performance status (PS) 2 (19.829, 3.200-122.865). The significant risk factors for delayed nausea were elevation of alanine aminotransferase (2.397, 1.153-4.984), general fatigue (2.652, 1.380-5.097), and PS 2 (5.748, 1.392-23.740).. The control for nausea in MEC was insufficient even with palonosetron and aprepitant, and we should pay attention to risk factors for preventing nausea.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Treatment Outcome

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared and disturbing adverse events of cancer treatment associated with decreased adherence to effective chemotherapy regimens. For high-risk soft tissue sarcoma patients, receiving multiple-day chemotherapy (MD-CT), antiemetic guidelines recommend a combination of an NK. We performed a prospective, non-comparative study to assess the efficacy of one shot of NEPA plus dexamethasone in sarcoma patients receiving MD-CT. The primary efficacy endpoint was a complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the overall phase (0-120 h) in cycle 1. The main secondary endpoints were CR during the overall phase of cycles 2 and 3.. The primary endpoint was reached in 88.9% of patients. Cycles 2 and 3 overall CR rates were 88.9% and 82.4%, respectively. The antiemetic regimen was well tolerated.. This pilot study showed the benefit of one shot of NEPA to prevent CINV in sarcoma patients receiving MD-chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Palonosetron; Pilot Projects; Prospective Studies; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Neurokinin-1; Sarcoma; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients receiving appropriate antiemetic treatment. However, inadequate uptake of current antiemetic guideline recommendations by physicians, and poor treatment adherence by patients, lead to suboptimal CINV control. There is an unmet need to optimize guideline-consistent use of antiemetics to improve CINV management and prevention. Herein, we provide an overview of CINV, then discuss oral and intravenous NEPA, the first fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant/fosnetupitant and palonosetron. We describe the main pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of NEPA, and review the clinical evidence supporting its use in the prevention of CINV.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Humans; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prognosis; Pyridines; Vomiting

We aimed to investigate the efficacy of 0.25 mg dose of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis in breast cancer patients receiving HEC.. Patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer who received HEC [doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC/EC)] were enrolled in the study. The prophylactic triplet antiemetic regimens were used according to the doctor's preference during the first cycle of HEC as intravenous dexamethasone and palonosetron 0.25 mg or granisetron 3 mg on day 1 as well as oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3).The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CR) on acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), separately.. A total of 118 female patients were included in the study. Patients received AC (83%), EC (3%), and dose-dense AC (14%) as adjuvant (88%) or neoadjuvant (12%). The majority of patients received palonosetron (59%) containing antiemetic treatment. The CR rate on acute and delayed vomiting was very high and not statistically different in both of the arms (acute 87% vs. 96%, p = 0.089; delayed 90% vs. 92%, p = 0.489), respectively. Nevertheless, the CR rate on either acute or delayed nausea was lower than vomiting (acute 51% vs. 51%; delayed 38% vs. 29%, p = 0.203; respectively).. This is the second study that compared a 0.25 mg dose of palonosetron with first-generation setron in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving HEC. We could not find meaningful statistical differences between two arms, regarding CR rate on acute and delayed CINV.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Breast Neoplasms; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Doxorubicin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epirubicin; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Vomiting

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Female; Humans; Insurance Claim Review; Longitudinal Studies; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

Breast cancer patients often receive anthracycline-based chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most uncomfortable and distressing adverse reactions. Poor control of CINV reduces the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy agents, which has been associated with poor clinical outcomes and shorter survival. The aim of the present study was to identify genetic risk factors associated with anthracycline-based CINV.. We evaluated CINV attributable to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in Japanese breast cancer patients treated with an antiemetic regimen that included palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone. Furthermore, we investigated the associations between CINV and single nucleotide polymorphisms in 6 candidate genes.. Emesis episodes were rarely observed in the 125 patients included in the present survey (7.2%; n = 9); however, significant nausea occurred in more than one half of the patients (52.8%; n = 66). In particular, acute significant nausea was not effectively controlled. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ABCG2 (rs2231142) AA genotype is significantly associated with acute significant nausea (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-23.60; P = .049).. The findings of the present study provide significant insights for developing personalized antiemetic strategies for breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Anthracyclines; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antiemetics; Aprepitant; ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily G, Member 2; Breast Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Female; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasm Proteins; Odds Ratio; Palonosetron; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Few studies have investigated the effect of palonosetron on delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lymphoma patients receiving the CHOP regimen. We conducted a prospective clinical trial to assess the efficacy of palonosetron in patients receiving the CHOP regimen.. Complete control (CC: emesis-free and mild nausea) during delayed phase (24-120 h) was the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint was complete response (CR: emesis-free) during acute (0-24 h), delayed, and overall phases (0-120 h), and CC during acute and overall phases. Palonosetron (0.75 mg) was administered before chemotherapy on day 1 of both the first and second CHOP cycles.. The efficacy of palonosetron in preventing emesis was evaluated in 40 patients. Across two cycles, over 85% of patients achieved CR. As the primary endpoint, the proportion of patients achieving CC in the delayed phase increased from 70% (cycle 1) to 85% (cycle 2). CR rate in the delayed phase increased from 85% (cycle 1) to 95% (cycle 2).. These results suggest that the antiemetic effects during the delayed phase were inferior to those in the acute phase during the first cycle. However, even at the same dose of palonosetron, CR and CC rates increased in the second cycle.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prednisone; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Vincristine; Vomiting; Young Adult

Younger age and female sex have already been well-known risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and 30-50% of cancer patients still suffer from CINV. Genetic polymorphisms are suggested to influence antiemetic treatment response.. This study included a subset of patients previously enrolled in a randomised controlled trial; 156 patients were evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the role of pharmacogenomic polymorphisms relevant to antiemetic response in patients with cancer receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The study's efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR). The study endpoint was evaluated separately in the acute (CR. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ERCC1 8092AA (odds ratio [OR] = 11.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74-72.71; p = 0.011) and female sex (OR = 3.63; 95% CI 1.14-11.58; p = 0.029) were significant predictors of CR. ERCC1 polymorphism influenced the extent of CINV control in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.. Clinical trial information: UMIN 000009335.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dexamethasone; Female; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Granisetron; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting

Topics: Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Humans; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Vomiting

This retrospective analysis evaluated chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-related hydration needs with palonosetron or granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), approved in 2016 for CINV prevention.. At a community practice, CINV-related hydration per chemotherapy cycle was determined following highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and a guideline-recommended antiemetic regimen: NK-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and either palonosetron only, GERSC only, or palonosetron switched to GERSC.. Palonosetron-only patients (n = 93) had a significantly higher mean (standard deviation) hydration rate (0.9 [1.1]) than GERSC-only patients (n = 91; 0.3 [0.6]; p < 0.0001). Switched patients' (n = 48) hydration rates were significantly higher in the HEC subgroup with palonosetron (0.7 [1.2]) versus GERSC (0.5 [1.0]; p = 0.028).. GERSC in a three-drug antiemetic regimen may reduce hydration needs following HEC or MEC. [Formula: see text].

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Delayed-Action Preparations; Dexamethasone; Female; Fluid Therapy; Granisetron; Humans; Injections, Subcutaneous; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron and palonosetron against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy. A total of 61 patients were eligible for this study. Before starting the bendamustine-based chemotherapy, granisetron or palonosetron were intravenously administered with or without aprepitant and/or dexamethasone. The proportions of patients with complete control (CC) during the overall (during the 6 days after the start of the chemotherapy), acute (up to 2 days), and delayed (3 to 6 days) phases were assessed. CC was defined as complete response with only grade 0-1 nausea, no vomiting, and no use of antiemetic rescue medication. Granisetron or palonosetron alone were administered to 9 and 19 patients, respectively. Aprepitant and/or dexamethasone were combined with granisetron and palonosetron in 28 and 5 patients, respectively. Acute CINV was completely controlled in all patients. Both granisetron monotherapy and palonosetron combination therapy could provide good control of delayed CINV, although the CC rates during the delayed and overall phases were not significantly different among mono- and combination therapy of the antiemetics. There was no significant difference in the frequencies of adverse drug events between the granisetron and palonosetron treatment groups. The present study showed that the antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron-based therapy were non-inferior to those of palonosetron-based therapy. Taken together with treatment costs, granisetron monotherapy would be adequate to prevent CINV in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving bendamustine-based chemotherapy.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Bendamustine Hydrochloride; Dexamethasone; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

Palonosetron is an effective antiemetic in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but has yet to be studied in the radiation setting. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV).. Patients without existing nausea and vomiting undergoing palliative radiotherapy to sites with emetic risk were prescribed palonosetron 0.5 mg orally before the start of radiation treatment, and every other day until completion of treatment. Patients were followed up in acute (day 1 of treatment to day 1 after treatment) and delayed phases (days 2-10 after treatment). The primary endpoint was control of vomiting. Complete control was defined as no use of rescue medication and no episodes of nausea or vomiting. Secondary endpoints included control of nausea and quality of life (QOL). QOL was assessed with the Functional Living Index-Emesis and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Questionnaire-Core 15 Palliative (C15-PAL).. In all evaluable patients (n=75), complete control of vomiting was 93.3% in the acute phase and 93.2% in the delayed phase. Complete control of nausea was 74.7% in the acute phase and 74.0% in the delayed phase.. Results suggest improved control in RINV compared to historical reports with first generation serotonin receptor antagonists (RA). A randomized study will be needed to confirm this finding.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Pilot Projects; Quinuclidines; Radiotherapy; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Patients with gynecological cancers are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after platinum-based chemotherapy (CT). NEPA (300-mg netupitant, 0.50-mg palonosetron) is the first oral fixed-combination antiemetic. Pivotal trials demonstrated the superiority of oral NEPA over intravenous palonosetron in preventing CINV after highly emetogenic (anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based [AC] and cisplatin-based [non-AC]) CT. This post hoc subset analysis considered patients with gynecological cancer receiving cisplatin- or carboplatin-based CT from 1 pivotal trial and from 1 multicycle safety trial to evaluate the efficacy of oral NEPA in preventing CINV.. Single-dose NEPA was given before CT in combination with dexamethasone. The efficacy end points for the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (25-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) CINV phases after CT included complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue medication) and no significant nausea (<25 mm on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale). Safety was also assessed.. For cisplatin-induced CINV, NEPA achieved high CR rates (acute phase: >90%; delayed, overall phases: ≥85%). For carboplatin-induced CINV, NEPA was also highly effective, with high acute, delayed, and overall CR rates (cycle 1: >75%; cycles 2-4: >95%). No significant nausea rates were more than 90% and more than 80% in the acute and delayed phases, respectively, for patients receiving cisplatin or carboplatin. NEPA was well tolerated.. Results suggest that oral NEPA is effective and safe in preventing CINV in patients with gynecological cancers treated with cisplatin- or carboplatin-based CT. Single fixed-combination NEPA is a convenient option for CINV prevention in high-risk CINV patients.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Combinations; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Vomiting

Prevention of nausea and vomiting is of paramount importance for ensuring that patients undergoing anticancer treatments have optimal quality of life. The oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) was developed to improve dual-targeted anti-emetic prophylaxis administration. Areas covered: This article summarizes the available evidence for the pharmacology, safety, and efficacy of the new intravenous formulation of NEPA (IV NEPA). The clinical role of NEPA and future perspectives for anti-emetic research are also discussed. Expert opinion: Each patient undergoing emetogenic anticancer treatments should receive guideline-consistent prophylaxis from the beginning of therapy. However, physicians may be nonadherent to guidelines in prescribing prophylaxis, while patients may be nonadherent in taking their medication as prescribed. Therefore, simplification of anti-emetic regimens with agents that are administered once per treatment cycle may contribute to improve guideline adherence by physicians and compliance with regimens by patients. IV NEPA may also help overcome potential logistical issues surrounding the oral administration of NEPA. While short-term olanzapine can improve control of nausea, it also causes transient but significantly increased sedation. This side effect as well as new evidence support further efforts to explore the overall potential of NEPA against nausea caused by either chemotherapy or concurrent chemo-radiotherapy.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Radiotherapy; Vomiting

This study aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy and safety of a four-drug combination with those of a standard three-drug combination in Japanese patients with breast cancer treated with anthracycline. We retrospectively analyzed data from Japanese patients with breast cancer, who had received their first cycle of anthracycline and were treated with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone with or without olanzapine. This retrospective observational study was performed at Ehime University Hospital using the electronic medical records. Multivariable and propensity score-adjusted analyses were performed to compare the onset of complete response (CR) failure between the groups. One-hundred and thirty patients were included in this study and the four- and three-drug group had 22 and 108 patients, respectively. Similar to multivariable logistic regression analysis, propensity-adjusted logistic regression analysis revealed that the four-drug group was markedly associated with a decreased odds of CR failure in the overall, acute, and delayed phases (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.73; OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10-0.76; and OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04-0.57, respectively). Additionally, treatment-related adverse events were well tolerated in both the groups. These findings suggest that the antiemetic efficacy of the four-drug combination is superior to that of the standard three-drug combination.

Topics: Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Breast Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Nausea; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Sleepiness; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The aim of this study was to identify a high-risk or low-risk population for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among patients with breast cancer treated with a current standard 3-drug antiemetic regimen and receiving anthracycline.. We analyzed data from chemotherapy-naive Japanese patients with breast cancer, who had received the first cycle of anthracycline-based regimen and were treated with a 3-drug combination of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. This study was carried out at Ehime University Hospital (Toon, Japan) using electronic medical records from May 2011 to June 2017. The primary end point was complete response (CR), which was defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medication.. A total of 103 patients were included in this study. The percentages of patients who had a CR in the overall, acute, and delayed phases were 35.0%, 40.8%, and 50.5%, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age <55 years and body mass index <27.5 kg/m. The present findings suggest that, among patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline and treated with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone, patients younger than 55 years and having a body mass index <27.5 kg/m

Topics: Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Breast Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Vomiting

To evaluate the efficiency of resources allocation and sustainability of the use of netupitant+palonosetron (NEPA) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis assuming the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published Markov model was adapted to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio of NEPA compared with aprepitant (APR) + palonosetron (PALO), fosaprepitant (fAPR) + PALO, APR + ondansetron (ONDA), fAPR + ONDA in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with APR + PALO and fAPR + PALO in patients receiving a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).. Oncology hospital department in Italy.. A Markov model was used to determine the impact of NEPA on the budget of the Italian NHS on a 5-day time horizon, corresponding to the acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis phases. Direct medical costs considered were related to antiemetic drugs, adverse events management, CINV episodes management. Clinical and quality of life data referred to previously published works. The budget impact analysis considered the aforementioned therapies plus PALO alone (for HEC and MEC) on a 5-year time horizon, comparing two scenarios: one considering the use of NEPA and one not considering its use.. Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and differential economic impact for the Italian NHS between the two scenarios considered.. NEPA is more effective and less expensive (dominant) compared with APR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), fAPR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), APR + ONDA (for HEC), fAPR + ONDA (for HEC). The use of NEPA would lead to a 5-year cost decrease of €63.7 million (€42.7 million for HEC and €20.9 million for MEC).. NEPA allows an efficient allocation of resources for the Italian NHS and it is sustainable, leading to a cost decrease compared with a scenario which does not consider its use.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Budgets; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Health Resources; Humans; Isoquinolines; Italy; National Health Programs; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

In the present study, the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, not combined with dexamethasone and aprepitant, on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting was evaluated in patients with malignant lymphoma receiving first-line rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy, and was compared to that of granisetron. A total of 74 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma were included in this study (April 2007 to December 2015). Palonosetron (0.75 mg) or granisetron (3 mg) was intravenously administered before R-CHOP therapy. The proportions of patients with complete response (CR) during the overall (0-120 h after the start of R-CHOP therapy), acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) phases were evaluated. CR was defined as no vomiting and no use of antiemetic rescue medication. A total of 32 and 42 patients were treated with palonosetron and granisetron, respectively. The CR rate in the palonosetron group was significantly higher than that in the granisetron group during the delayed phase (90.6 and 61.9%, respectively; p=0.007). Logistic regression analysis showed that use of palonosetron improved the CR rate during the delayed phase, compared to use of granisetron. Female sex, age less than 60 years, no habitual alcohol intake, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) score of 1 were significant risk factors associated with non-CR. The findings of this study suggested the superiority of palonosetron to granisetron, without accompanying dexamethasone and aprepitant, for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with malignant lymphoma.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aging; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Asian People; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prednisone; Quinuclidines; Risk Factors; Rituximab; Sex Characteristics; Treatment Outcome; Vincristine; Vomiting; Young Adult

Background Two pivotal Phase III trials compared the efficacy of palonosetron, ondansetron and granisetron, combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. However, an economic evaluation of these three regimens in the real-world setting of Chinese adult patients has not been determined. Objectives To estimate, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, which of these frequently used strategies consisting of 0.25 mg palonosetron (0.25P), 16 mg ondansetron (Onda), and 3 mg granisetron (Gran), is the most cost-effective option in patients following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Methods A Markov decision-analytic model was developed. The health and economic outcomes of the three strategies; 0.25P, Onda, and Gran were investigated. The clinical and utility data were taken from published studies. The cost data were calculated according to current local Chinese practices. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of uncertainty regarding the results. Results The base-case analysis showed that the 0.25P strategy yielded maximum health benefits compared with the other two strategies. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the Gran strategy was the most cost-effective approach when the willingness-to-pay threshold was not more than US$22,515/quality-adjusted life year. Moreover, palonosetron is not cost-effective in preventing 'overall' nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese patients. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that, compared with palonosetron and ondansetron, 3 mg granisetron may be a cost-effective treatment option in the current Chinese healthcare setting.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Asian People; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dexamethasone; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Vomiting

There is no positive evidence for the efficacy of antiemetic triplet therapy with aprepitant (APR), palonosetron (PALO), and dexamethasone (DEX) for moderate emetogenic chemotherapy, especially for gynecologic malignancies. Thus, the present study evaluated the efficacy of this triplet therapy in patients receiving carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) for gynecologic malignancy.. Seventy patients with gynecologic cancer receiving CP were enrolled into a prospective single-arm study with APR (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on days 2-3), PALO (0.75 mg), and DEX (20 mg) before initiating chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was delayed complete response (CR) rate, i.e., no vomiting and no rescue, at 24-120 h after chemotherapy administration.. Seventy patients were enrolled. The delayed CR rate was 97.1% (68/70). No serious adverse events were observed. Younger patient age (≤50 years) tended to be associated with a poor delayed CR rate.. This study demonstrated a notable efficacy of antiemetic triplet therapy with APR, PALO, and DEX in female patients receiving CP. Further evaluation with a larger phase III trial is warranted.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Carboplatin; Dexamethasone; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nausea; Paclitaxel; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Vomiting; Young Adult

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new combination antiemetic therapy consisting of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone in gastric cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with S-1 plus cisplatin.. This prospective, multi-institutional observational study assessed patient-reported nausea, vomiting, use of rescue therapy, change of dietary intake, and Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire results. The percentages of patients showing complete response (CR; no emesis and non-use of any rescue antiemetics) and complete protection (CP; no significant nausea and non-use of any rescue antiemetics), change of dietary intake, and impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily life during the overall (0-120 h after cisplatin administration), acute (0-24 h), and delayed (24-120 h) phases were examined. These findings were compared with our previous study, which used granisetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone, to assess the relative effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in combination antiemetic therapy.. Of the 72 included patients, 66 (91.6 %), 70 (97.2 %), and 50 (69.1 %) achieved CR, and 48 (66.7 %), 61 (84.7 %) and 49 (68.1 %) achieved CP during in the overall, acute, and delayed phases of cisplatin administration, respectively. Approximately half of the patients had some degree of anorexia. FLIE results indicated that 78.6 % of patients maintained their quality of life. Palonosetron was not superior to granisetron in combination antiemetic therapy.. Three-drug combination antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was tolerable in gastric cancer patients undergoing treatment with S-1 plus cisplatin. The predominance of palonosetron to granisetron was not demonstrated in this study.

Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Oxonic Acid; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Stomach Neoplasms; Surveys and Questionnaires; Tegafur; Vomiting

Antiemetic prophylaxis with aprepitant, a 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is recommended for patients receiving intravenous cisplatin chemotherapy. Whether the same antiemetic regime is superior for hepatic transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin (CDDP-TAI) is unknown. We conducted a retrospective study of antiemetic prophylaxis protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in CDDP-TAI at Nagasaki University Hospital. The rate of complete response (CR) to antiemetics in the acute (<24 h) and delayed phases (24-120 h) was measured. Twenty-four patients were treated with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (granisetron or azasetron) and dexamethasone on the day of chemotherapy (day 1 only). There was a significant difference between the CR rates in the acute and delayed phases, 91.6, and 69.7%, respectively. Combination of a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone on day 1 is effective against acute CINV, but not delayed CINV during CDDP-TAI. These results may help guide the management of nausea and vomiting during CDDP-TAI to achieve better tolerance and compliance for fewer interventions and increased favorable therapeutic outcomes.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic; Catheterization, Peripheral; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Liver; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Oxazines; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of combined treatment with the long-acting 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor-3 antagonist, palonosetron, the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, oral aprepitant, and dexamethasone as primary antiemetic prophylaxis for cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.. Chemotherapy-naïve patients received the triple combination of palonosetron (0.25 mg), aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3), and dexamethasone (20 mg) from the beginning of highly emetogenic chemotherapy with cisplatin-based (≥50 mg/m(2)) regimens. The primary endpoint was a complete response (no emetic episodes and no rescue antiemetics) during the days 1-6.. Sixty-nine hospitalized patients receiving chemotherapy from September 2012 to October 2014 were analyzed. Complete response of vomiting and nausea-free was achieved in 97.1% and 85.5% of patients in the first cycle, respectively, and 96.7% and 83.6% of patients in the second cycle, respectively. Common adverse events in all 69 patients included constipation (43%), hiccup (26%), and headache (4%).. The combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone as primary antiemetic prophylaxis for cancer patients with highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy is effective.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Palonosetron(Palo)is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist(5-HT3RA)effective in suppressing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in both acute and delayed phases.Most studies have reported Palo as an effective antiemetic for cisplatin(CDDP)chemotherapy(≥50mg/m2)administered on an intermittent basis.To assess the antiemetic efficacy of Palo, we performed a retrospective study in 16 patients with lung cancer who received Palo with split-dose CDDP, ifosfamide, and irinotecan(CPT-11)triple combination(CIC)therapy at Sapporo Minami-Sanjo Hospital between October 2010 and January 2012.T he CIC regimen consisted of CPT-11(50-60mg/m2)administered on days 1, 8, and 15, in addition to CDDP(15-20mg/m2)and ifosfamide(1,500mg/kg)for 4 consecutive days.On day 1, ramosetron was replaced with Palo in patients who had insufficient antiemetic control in accordance with guidelines on the management of highly emetogenic chemotherapy(HEC).There was a lower incidence of grade 1 or higher nausea(62.5%)in patients in the Palo-combination group than in those in the non-Palo-combination group(87.5%).No incidence of grade 3 or higher nausea was reported in either group.On the fifth day of chemotherapy, the incidence of nausea was significantly lower in the Palo-combination group(43.8%)than in the non-Palo-combination group(81.3%)(p<0.05).In addition, there was a significant decrease in the number of days of incidence and a significant increase in the number of days since the last episode was observed in the Palo-combination group.These results suggest that Palo, in particular, decreases the incidence of nausea and extends the number of days since its occurrence; moreover, it is effective in accelerating recovery.In conclusion, this study suggests that Palo exhibits excellent antiemetic efficacy in patients administered split doses of CDDP.

Topics: Antiemetics; Cisplatin; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Topics: Arthritis; Capsules; Drug Combinations; Etanercept; Humans; Injections; Isoquinolines; Naltrexone; Nausea; Oxycodone; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Vomiting

Concomitant use of temozolomide (TMZ) and radiotherapy, which is the standard therapy for patients with high-grade glioma, involves a unique regimen with multiple-day, long-term administration. In a previous study, we showed not only higher incidence rates of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the overall study period, but also substantially higher incidence rates of moderate/severe nausea and particularly severe appetite suppression during the late phase of the treatment. Here, we prospectively evaluated the efficacy of a combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for CINV in patients treated with concomitant TMZ and radiotherapy. Twenty-one consecutive patients with newly diagnosed high-grade glioma were enrolled. CINV was recorded using a daily diary and included nausea assessment, emetic episodes, degree of appetite suppression, and use of antiemetic medication. The percentage of patients with a complete response in the overall period was 76.2%. The percentages of patients with no moderate/severe nausea were 90.5, 100, and 90.5% in the early phase, late phase, and overall period, respectively. Severe appetite suppression throughout the overall period completely disappeared. The combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was highly effective and well tolerated in patients treated with concomitant TMZ and radiotherapy. This combination of antiemetic therapy focused on delayed as well as acute CINV and may have the potential to overcome CINV associated with a multiple-day, long-term chemotherapy regimen.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Aprepitant; Brain Neoplasms; Dacarbazine; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Glioma; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Temozolomide; Vomiting

5-HT(3) receptor antagonists are widely used as antiemetic agents in clinical setting, of which palonosetron, with a long elimination half life (t(1/2)), has recently become available. It is important to evaluate the concentration of serotonin when investigating the antiemetic effects of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, as those effects are not based solely on the t(1/2) value. We theoretically evaluated the antiemetic effects of three 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (granisetron, azasetron, palonosetron) on cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting by estimating the time course of the 5-HT(3) receptor occupancy of serotonin. We estimated the 5-HT(3) receptor occupancy of serotonin in the small intestine, based on the time course of plasma concentration of each 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and the time course of concentration of serotonin near the 5-HT(3) receptor in the small intestine after administration of cisplatin. The antiemetic effect of each 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist was evaluated based on the normal level of 5-HT(3) receptor occupancy of serotonin. Our results suggest that an adequate antiemetic effect will be provided when a dose of 75 mg/m(2) of cisplatin is given to patients along with any single administration of granisetron, azasetron, or palonosetron at a usual dose. On the other hand, the 5-HT(3) receptor occupancy of serotonin was found to be significantly lower than normal for several days after administration of palonosetron, as compared to granisetron and azasetron, indicating that constipation may be induced. Our results show that granisetron, azasetron, and palonosetron each have an adequate antiemetic effect after administration of 75 mg/m(2) of cisplatin.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic; Cisplatin; Constipation; Creatinine; Granisetron; Humans; Hydroxyindoleacetic Acid; Intestine, Small; Isoquinolines; Models, Biological; Nausea; Oxazines; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Serotonin; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. The use of a combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist has significantly improved the control of acute and delayed emesis in single-day chemotherapy. The first generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have been very effective in the control of chemotherapy induced emesis in the first 24 h postchemotherapy (acute emesis), but have not been as effective against delayed emesis (24-120 h postchemotherapy). Palonosetron, a second generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a different half-life, a different binding capacity, and a different mechanism of action than the first generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists appears to be the most effective agent in its class. Despite the control of emesis, nausea has not been well controlled by current agents. Olanzapine, a FDA approved antipsychotic that blocks multiple neurotransmitters: dopamine at D1, D2, D3, D4 brain receptors, serotonin at 5-HT2a, 5-HT2c, 5-HT3, 5-HT6 receptors, catecholamines at alpha1 adrenergic receptors, acetylcholine at muscarinic receptors, and histamine at H1 receptors, has emerged in recent trials as an effective preventative agent for chemotherapy-induced emesis and nausea, as well as a very effective agent for the treatment of breakthrough emesis and nausea. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Membrane channels and transporters in cancers.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Dexamethasone; Half-Life; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Olanzapine; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Neurokinin-1; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

To evaluate the appearance of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and to compare the antiemetic efficacy of the triple combination of palonosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone with that of our old regimen using first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3-receptor antagonists and dexamethasone during gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial cancer.. We carried out a multi-institutional study including 122 patients who received gemcitabine and cisplatin for advanced urothelial cancer between February 2005 and January 2012. Uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting events were identified through records of nausea and vomiting, additional infusion, rescue medications, and/or records of food intake.. First-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3-receptor antagonists (ondansetron or granisetron) plus dexamethasone were used for 75 patients (cohort 1), and palonosetron with dexamethasone plus aprepitant for 47 patients (cohort 2). Patients in cohort 2 had significantly higher complete response (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) rates than those in cohort 1 during the overall phase in the first cycle (85.7% vs 65.3%, P = 0.012), and all cycles (78.7% vs 50.7%, P = 0.0019) of gemcitabine and cisplatin. Patients in cohort 2 were more likely to achieve more favorable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control; that is, a lower grade of nausea, vomiting or anorexia, lower incidence of rescue therapy required, and shorter time to become chemotherapy-induced nausea- and vomiting-free than patients in cohort 1.. The present results show that palonosetron in combination with aprepitant and dexamethasone is more effective to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in urothelial cancer patients treated with gemcitabine and cisplatin than first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3-receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell; Cisplatin; Deoxycytidine; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Gemcitabine; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Kidney Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Ureteral Neoplasms; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Urologic Neoplasms; Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are among adverse effects of chemotherapy that significantly worsen quality of life of patients. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists have been used in recent decades to prevent and arrest these complications. Palonosetron is the most modern drug in this group. Palonosetron application during highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy showed its high effectiveness for nausea and vomiting prevention.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The current standard for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting in autologous stem cell transplant only achieves 4-20% emetic control.. To assess emetic responses to multiday palonosetron, aprepitant, and low-dose dexamethasone among patients with myeloma and lymphoma undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.. Oral aprepitant 125/80/80 mg was administered with intravenous dexamethasone 4 mg and palonosetron 0.25 mg on days -3, -2, -1 for multiple myeloma and days -7 through -3 for lymphoma. Palonosetron was repeated day +3 in both groups.. A total of 20 patients were enrolled and 18 analyzed. None experienced emetic failure with complete control achieved in 78, 33, and 17% in the acute, delayed, and extended phases, respectively. Nausea occurred in 78% although not significant in 61%, with median Nausea Visual Score of 4.5. Quality of life correlated with emetic and nausea control. Eight patients developed grade 2-3 nonhematologic toxicities with only one event attributed to the study medications.. This triplet regimen was feasible with acceptable safety profile in the autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant setting. Emetic control was best achieved in the acute phase. Lesser degree of emetic and nausea control in the delayed and extended phases impacted quality of life. Our results warrant further evaluation in a larger autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant population.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Multiple Myeloma; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pilot Projects; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Transplantation, Autologous; Vomiting

A quality improvement project was implemented to improve adherence to evidence-based antiemetic guidelines for malignant glioma patients treated with moderately emetic chemotherapy (MEC). Poorly controlled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) reduce cancer treatment efficacy and significantly impair cancer patients' quality of life (QOL). A review of Duke University Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center (PRTBTC)'s usual practice demonstrates a high incidence (45%) of CINV, despite premedication with short-acting 5-HT3-serotonin-receptor antagonists (5-HT3-RAs). National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)'s evidence-based guidelines recommend the combination of the long-acting 5-HT3-RA palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV with MEC. Low adherence (58%) to antiemetic guidelines may have explained our high CINV incidence.. One-sample binomial test, quasi-experimental design, evaluated a combination intervention that included a provider education session; implementation of risk-assessment tool with computerized, standardized antiemetic guideline order sets; and a monthly audit-feedback strategy. Post-implementation adherence to evidence-based antiemetic order sets and patient outcomes were measured and compared to baseline and historical data. Primary outcome was the guideline order set adherence rate. Secondary outcomes included nausea/vomiting rates and QOL.. Adherence to ordering MEC guideline antiemetics increased significantly, from 58% to a sustained 90%, with associated improvement in nausea/vomiting. In acute and delayed phases, 75 and 84% of patients, respectively, did not experience CINV. There was no significant change in QOL.. Combination intervention and audit-feedback strategy to translate evidence into oncology practice improved and sustained adherence to antiemetic guidelines. Adherence corresponded with effective nausea/vomiting control and preserved QOL in patients with malignant gliomas.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Brain Neoplasms; Dexamethasone; Female; Glioblastoma; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Medication Adherence; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Translational Research, Biomedical; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The aims of this study were to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of repeated doses of palonosetron 0.75 mg on days 1 and 3 in Japanese patients who received highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.. Twenty- six patients received palonosetron 0.75 mg intravenously before chemotherapy on days 1 and 3 plus dexamethasone (12-16 mg before chemotherapy on day 1 and 4-8 mg on days 2 and 3). The primary endpoints were safety and pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetics were evaluated in a subset of patients (n=6). Complete response and complete protection were evaluated as secondary endpoints.. The accumulation ratios for C max and AUClast after the second dose on day 3 were 1.42 and 1.37, respectively. These values were consistent with the theoretical values expected from the half-life of palonosetron on day 1. Almost all of the patients had no nausea or vomiting in the acute phase (complete response (CR) rate, 96.2% [25/26]; CP rate, 92.3% [24/26]). In the delayed phase (24-192 h post-chemotherapy), the complete response and complete protection rates were 76.9% (20/26) and 61.5% (16/26), respectively. Treatment was well tolerated.. This is the first study to report the pharmacokinetics of multiple doses of palonosetron 0.75 mg, given on days 1 and 3, in Japanese patients. Repeated treatment with palonosetron was safe and well tolerated by patients who received highly or moderately emetogenic anticancer chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Vomiting

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Approval; Drug Combinations; Drug Interactions; Drug Labeling; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration; Vomiting

To evaluate the efficacy of reduction of dexamethasone with a single-dose of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for early breast cancer.. Chemotherapy-naive patients with breast cancer were given HEC in an adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. Palonosetron and dexamethasone 4 mg i.v. were given on day 1 and another two administrations of dexamethasone 4 mg i.m. were given on days 2 and 3. The end-point was complete response (CR) and complete control (CC) during the acute and delayed phases.. Twenty-six patients were observed. Complete response was achieved in 19 out of 26 patients (72.4%); the same result was shown in 72.4% out of 76 courses given.. This alternative schedule suggests efficacy for the control of acute and delayed emesis in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Further investigations are required to confirm these results.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epirubicin; Female; Fluorouracil; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasm Staging; Palonosetron; Prognosis; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in the quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient characteristics (female gender, younger age, low alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, has antiemetic activity at both central and gastrointestinal sites. In comparison to the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, it has a higher potency, a significantly longer half-life, and a different molecular interaction with 5-HT3 receptors. Palonosetron has been approved for the prevention of acute CINV in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for the prevention of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Compared to the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone has demonstrated better control of delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and had a similar safety profile. Due to its efficacy in controlling both acute and delayed CINV, palonosetron may be very effective in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are among the most problematic symptoms experienced by patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy. 5-hydroxytryptamine 3(5-HT3)-receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists(aprepitant)and dexamethasone are now the standard therapies for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)that follow highly emetogenic chemotherapy, such as cisplatin and anthracycline. However, since it is not cleared which 5-HT3-recepter antagonist is a proper treatment for combined use with aprepitant and dexamethasone, we conducted a questionnaire survey, which used the numerical rating scale(NRS), for comparing palonosetron with granisetron in the same patient. Palonosetron showed a significant improvement of nausea for both acute(within 24 hours)and delayed phase(24-120 hours later), regardless of the type of chemotherapy(cisplatin or anthracycline-based regimen). Furthermore, palonosetron had a tolerable safety profile. Our study suggests that palonosetron-based antiemetic treatment will be a preferred choice for preventing CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Topics: Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Dexamethasone; Drug Combinations; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Risk; Vomiting

The aim of this study was to compare the risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events for various 5-HT(3) RAs in patients who received moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) by evaluating hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions.. PharMetrics claims database was used to identify patients diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) who were initiated on cyclophosphamide-based adjuvant chemotherapy or with lung cancer (LC) initiated on carboplatin-based or cisplatin-based chemotherapy between 2005 and 2008. Patients were stratified in two groups: those initiated and maintained on palonosetron versus those treated with any other 5-HT(3) RA regimens in the 6-month post first chemotherapy. Risk for CINV events, identified by ICD-9-CM for nausea, vomiting, and/or dehydration, were estimated using logistic regressions, controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, and total chemotherapy doses or days.. Of the 4,868 cyclophosphamide-treated BC, 5,414 carboplatin-treated LC, and 1,692 cisplatin-treated LC identified, there were 1,864 BC (38.5%), 1,806 carboplatin-treated LC (33.4%), and 390 cisplatin-treated LC (23.0%) in the palonosetron-only group. Palonosetron-only group had significantly lower probability of CINV events associated with ED/hospital admissions in all three cohorts (3.5% vs. 6.3% in BC, 9.5% vs. 13.8% in carboplatin-treated LC, and 16.4% vs. 22.6% in cisplatin-treated LC, all at p < 0.05). Logistic regressions found palonosetron-only group had significantly lower risk of CINV events (odds ratios = 0.550, 0.653, and 0.689 in BC, carboplatin-treated LC and cisplatin-treated LC, respectively, p < 0.05).. Patients with lung or breast cancer receiving MEC or HEC had significantly lower risk of CINV events associated with hospital/ED admissions if initiated and maintained on palonosetron relative to patients receiving 5-HT(3) RA regimens.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Carboplatin; Cisplatin; Cohort Studies; Cyclophosphamide; Databases, Factual; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hospitalization; Humans; Isoquinolines; Logistic Models; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

To evaluate the efficacy of a new agent, palonosetron, in Hodgkin Lymphoma patients treated with ABVD regimen. Complete response during the overall phase of the first ABVD cycle, was the primary endpoint. Secondary end points were: emesis-free patients and use of rescue medication during the acute and overall phases. From January 2008 to February 2009 36 patients were enrolled. The primary endpoint (CR 0-120 h) was achieved by 55.6% patients. In conclusion our study demonstrated that a single dose of palonosetron plus a single dose of dexamethasone was effective in preventing CINV in patients treated with ABVD regimen.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bleomycin; Dacarbazine; Dexamethasone; Doxorubicin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Hodgkin Disease; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vinblastine; Vomiting; Young Adult

The purpose of this study is to examine the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) among lung cancer patients receiving multi-day chemotherapy and ondansetron- or palonosetron-initiated prophylactic antiemetic regimens in a community oncology setting.. The Georgia Cancer Specialists electronic medical records database was used to retrospectively identify lung cancer patients who received multi-day cisplatin or carboplatin regimens with ondansetron or palonosetron on day 1 between April 1, 2006 and July 31, 2009. Uncontrolled CINV events were identified through ICD-9-CM codes (nausea/vomiting), CPT codes (dehydration), rescue medications, nausea/vomiting hospitalizations, and/or antiemetic therapy after last chemotherapy administration of the cycle. Risk for uncontrolled CINV, up to 7 days after last chemotherapy administration, was analyzed at cycle level using logistic regression with regressors of gender, age, number of chemotherapy administration days, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer type, multicancer diagnoses, and chemotherapy regimen.. A total of 209 palonosetron and 153 ondansetron patients (702 and 515 cycles, respectively) met the inclusion criteria. Palonosetron patients were significantly older (mean 67.9 versus 63.9 years; P < 0.0001), with no significant difference in gender, baseline comorbidity score, or multicancer diagnosis. Palonosetron cycles had 63% lower risk for uncontrolled CINV events versus ondansetron cycles [odds ratio (OR) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.54; P < 0.0001]. Sub-analysis by chemotherapy supported overall analysis (cisplatin OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.04-0.25; P < 0.0001; carboplatin OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.30-0.70; P = 0.0003).. In this retrospective analysis of lung cancer patients, multi-day chemotherapy cycles administered with palonosetron on day 1 were associated with a significantly lower risk for uncontrolled CINV events versus ondansetron-initiated chemotherapy cycles.

Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adenocarcinoma of Lung; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

Palonosetron is a novel 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) (5 HT(3)) receptor antagonist, which has been shown to be superior to first generation 5 HT(3) receptor antagonists regarding the prevention of acute, delayed and overall chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. First generation 5 HT(3) receptor antagonists may induce electrocardiographic changes of heart rate and repolarization. The acute cardiac effect of palonosteron is unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine acute effects of palonosetron on electrocardiographic (ECG) parameters in cancer patients.. The study had a prospective design. Seventy-six cancer patients with normal cardiac function who received palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting were enrolled. Standard 12-lead ECG recordings were performed at baseline and 30 min after palonosetron administration. P wave durations and corrected QT intervals were measured; P wave dispersion (Pd) and QTc dispersion were calculated.. Median heart rate did not differ among 76 patients enrolled before and after palonosetron administration (p: 0.6). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were not significantly different before and after palonosteron (p values 0.9 and 0.3, respectively). Although median QT min value was higher after palonosetron administration than before palonosetron administration, the difference was not statistically significant (p: 0.6).. Palonosetron seems to have no acute arrhythmogenic potential.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Electrocardiography; Heart Rate; Humans; Isoquinolines; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting; Young Adult

5-hydroxytryptamine receptor type-3 (5-HT3) antagonists are widely used for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and regarded to have a high safety profile. However, several electrocardiographic changes and cardiac arrhythmias have been reported due to administration of 5-HT3 antagonists. Only prolongation of QT interval has been investigated as an index of potential for life-threatening arrhythmias in adult patients using 5-HT3 antagonists. Recently, increase in transmural dispersion of repolarization (TDR) has been proposed as a more reliable determinant of arrhythmogenic potential.. To assess the effects of palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 antagonist, on the T-wave peak to T-wave end (TpTe) interval which has been proposed as a reliable index of spatial TDR.. A total of 50 consecutive cancer patients (aged: 57 +/- 12 years) who were scheduled to receive emetogenic chemotherapy were included to the study. Baseline12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) recordings were obtained. Then, all patients received 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone followed by a single dose of 0.25 mg intravenous palonosetron administered over 30 seconds. A second ECG was performed 30 minutes after the administration of palonosetron. Indices of cardiac repolarization and TDR before and after the administration of palonosetron were compared.. In comparison with baseline there was no statistically significant change in any of the heart rate-corrected parameters, including QT(c) (lead V5), QT(maxc), QT(minc), QT(cd), TpTe (V5), TpTe(max), TpTe(min), TpTe(d) and TpTe/QT (V5).. Palonosetron does not have any significant effect on QT(c) and TpTe intervals. It might be the drug of choice for prophylaxis of CINV in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with known cardiotoxic potential or who have pre-existing cardiac disease that predispose them to drug-induced arrhythmias.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Electrocardiography; Female; Heart Rate; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Patient Selection; Predictive Value of Tests; Prospective Studies; Quinuclidines; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Time Factors; Turkey; Vomiting

1st generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), and palonosetron, a 2nd generation 5-HT3 RA, are indicated for the prevention of chemotherapy (CT)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately (MEC) and highly emetogenic CT agents (HEC). This study explores the impact of step therapy policies requiring use of an older 5-HT3 RA before palonosetron on risk of CINV associated with hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions.. Patients who received cyclophosphamide post breast cancer (BC) surgery or who were diagnosed with lung cancer on carboplatin (LC-carboplatin) or cisplatin (LC-cisplatin) were selected from PharMetrics' (IMS LifeLink) claims dataset (2005-2008). Patients were followed for 6 months from initial CT administration for CINV events identified through ICD-9-CM codes. Patients were grouped into those initiated with older, generic 5-HT3 RAs (ondansetron, granisetron, and dolasetron) and those initiated and maintained on palonosetron throughout study follow-up. CINV events and CINV days were analyzed using multivariate regressions controlling for demographic and clinical variables.. Eligible patients numbered 3,606 in BC, 4,497 in LC-carboplatin and 1,154 in LC-cisplatin cohorts, with 52%, 40%, and 34% in the palonosetron group, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two 5-HT3 RA groups in age or Charlson Comorbidity Index among the two MEC cohorts (BC and LC-carboplatin). Among the LC-cisplatin cohort, palonosetron users were older with more males than the older 5-HT3 RA group (age: 60.1 vs. 61.3; males, 66.9% vs. 56.9%). Compared to the older 5-HT3 RAs, the palonosetron groups incurred 22%-51% fewer 5-HT3 RA pharmacy claims, had fewer patients with CINV events (3.5% vs. 5.5% in BC, 9.5% vs. 12.8% in LC-carboplatin, 16.4% vs. 21.7% in LC-cisplatin), and had lower risk for CINV events (odds ratios 0.62, 0.71, or 0.71, respectively; p<0.05). The BC and LC-carboplatin palonosetron groups experienced 50% and 30% fewer CINV days than the generic 5-HT3 RA group (p<0.05).. Patients with breast or lung cancer initiated and maintained on palonosetron were at significantly lower risk for potentially costly CINV versus those on older 5-HT3 RAs. Further studies on impact of step therapy policy are warranted in order to minimize the clinical and economic burden of CINV.

Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Carboplatin; Cisplatin; Female; Health Care Surveys; Hospitalization; Humans; Isoquinolines; Logistic Models; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting(CINV)is very important for the continuation of chemotherapy. CINV can significantly affect a patient's quality of life, leading to poor compliance with further chemotherapy treatment. In this retrospective study, we assessed the efficacy of palonosetron versus granisetron for the incidence of CINV induced by mFOLFOX6 and FOLFIRI in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Eighty-eight patients were included in the efficacy analyses: 39 patients in the palonosetron group and 49 patients in the granisetron group. The incidence of nausea in the granisetron group(Grade 1: 40. 8%, Grade 2: 10. 2% and Grade 3: 4. 1%)was significantly higher than in the palonosetron group (Grade 1: 25. 6% and Grade 2: 7. 7%, p=0. 0422). The incidence of vomiting and appetite loss in the granisetron group was not significantly higher than in the palonosetron group(p=0. 2419, p=0. 2648, respectively). This suggests that palonosetron exerts better efficacy against chemotherapy-induced nausea than granisetron in patients receiving mFOLFOX6 and FOLFIRI. Information on such analyses is useful to promote the effectiveness of cancer chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Camptothecin; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Fluorouracil; Humans; Isoquinolines; Leucovorin; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Organoplatinum Compounds; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Vomiting

The second-generation serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist palonosetron has shown improved efficacy in the prevention of both acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, there have been no randomized controlled trials supporting the preferential use of palonosetron in triple antiemetic regimens for patients receiving multiday highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).. To compare the effectiveness of palonosetron-based and first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist-based triple antiemetic regimens in cancer patients receiving multiday HEC.. This was a review and analysis of medical record data. A total of 115 patients who had received multiday HEC were included and grouped into a palonosetron-based antiemetic group (n = 73) or a first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist-based antiemetic group (n = 42). Data on CINV were collected in 24-hour intervals for 120 hours after the start of chemotherapy.. Complete response rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups during any of the 3 phases: acute (0-24 hours), p = 0.877; overlap (24-120 hours), p = 0.997; and overall (0-120 hours), p = 0.723. The proportion of patients with complete control was similar between the groups during each phase: acute, p = 0.862; overlap, p = 0.838; and overall, p = 0.828. There was also no significant difference in other end points between the 2 groups. Among all patients, females experienced significantly more acute nausea (p = 0.040) and vomiting (p = 0.046) than males. Compared with nondrinkers, patients who consumed alcohol had a lower overall incidence of vomiting (p = 0.020).. Within a triple antiemetic regimen, a palonosetron-based antiemetic regimen was not significantly different from regimens based on first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists in preventing CINV during multiday HEC.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Alcohol Drinking; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Sex Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

To analyze the differences between ondansetron and palonosetron in healthcare resource use (i.e., inpatient/ outpatient encounters) among patients receiving intraperitoneal cisplatin.. A medical record review was performed. Intraperitoneal cisplatin administrations for gynecological cancers from January through June 2006 and from October 2007 through June 2008 were divided into two groups based on the serotonin-receptor antagonist used. The occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-related hospital readmissions, emergency department visits, and outpatient encounters occurring within 7 days after cisplatin administration was compared. CINV-related resource use was defined as events associated with dehydration, hypovolemia, nausea/vomiting, hypokalemia, constipation, shortness of breath, or syncope/collapse.. Ondansetron or palonosetron was used in 39 and 89 cisplatin administrations, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups with mean age of 59 years and ovarian cancer being the most common cancer. Length of stay was approximately 2 days. Palonosetron was always administered as a single-day therapy while one- or multi-day ondansetron therapy was administered in 27% and 73% of cycles, respectively. A trend towards more CINV-related hospitalizations with ondansetron versus palonosetron was observed (5.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.09) with no significant difference in other CINV-related encounters.. Palonosetron was associated with a trend to a lower risk of CINV-related hospital readmission than ondansetron in patients receiving intraperitoneal cisplatin for gynecological cancers, although not statistically significant. The duration of ondansetron therapy might be suboptimal with 27% of patients receiving only 1 day of therapy during hospital stay. These findings need to be confirmed in future studies.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Ambulatory Care; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Boston; Cisplatin; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Substitution; Emergency Service, Hospital; Fallopian Tube Neoplasms; Female; Health Resources; Humans; Isoquinolines; Length of Stay; Middle Aged; Nausea; Ondansetron; Ovarian Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Patient Readmission; Premedication; Quinuclidines; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Serotonin Antagonists; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

The combination of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist is currently the standard antiemetic treatment in patients receiving cisplatin-based high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of palonosetron, a unique second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, aprepitant, the only approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving HEC (cisplatin ≥50 mg/mq).. Chemotherapy-naïve adult patients, receiving cisplatin-based HEC, were treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg/i.v., dexamethasone 20 mg/i.v., and aprepitant 125 mg/p.o., 1-h before chemotherapy. Aprepitant 80 mg/p.o. and dexamethasone 4 mg p.o. were administered on days 2-3. Primary end point was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication), during the overall study period (0-120 h). Secondary end points were complete control (CR and no more than mild nausea), emesis-free rate, and nausea-free rate during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) periods. Safety was also evaluated.. A total of 222 patients were included in the study. Median age was 62 years, 76.6% were male and 23.4% female, and most common tumors were lung (66.7%) and head and neck (15.8%); 70.3% of patients achieved CR during the overall study period. Complete control, emesis-free rate, and nausea-free rate were 70.3%, 92.8%, and 59.9%, respectively, during the overall phase. The most commonly reported side effects were constipation (39% of patients) and headache (5%).. This study shows that palonosetron in combination with aprepitant and dexamethasone is effective to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients treated with cisplatin-based HEC.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Health Status Indicators; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Surveys and Questionnaires; Vomiting; Young Adult

This study evaluated the rate of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists (RAs) in patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies (lymphoma and leukemia) and receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in a hospital outpatient setting.. Patients aged ≥ 18 years and diagnosed with hematologic malignancies initiating HEC or MEC and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) and other 5-HT₃ RAs (Group 2) for the first time in a hospital outpatient setting between 4/1/2007 and 3/31/2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective Database. Within each cycle, CINV events were identified (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) through ICD-9 codes for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion (from each CT administration day 1 until the end of the CT cycle), or use of rescue medications (day 2 until the end of the CT cycle). Negative binomial distribution generalized linear multivariate regression model estimating the CINV event rate on CT, specific CT cycles, and cancer diagnosis (leukemia/lymphoma)-matched groups in the follow-up period (first of 8 cycles or 6 months) was developed.. Of 971 identified patients, 211 initiated palonosetron (Group 1). Group 1 patients comprised of more females [50.2 vs. 41.4%; p = 0.0226], Whites [74.4 vs. 70.4%, and Hispanics [7.6 vs. 6.3%; all races p = 0.0105], received more HEC treatments [89.6 vs. 84.2%; all CT types p = 0.0129], and had more lymphoma diagnosed patients [89.6 vs. 76.3%; all cancer types p = 0.0033] at baseline. After controlling for differences in several demographic and clinical variables, the regression model predicted a 20.4% decrease in CINV event rate per CT cycle for Group 1 versus Group 2 patients. Study limitations include potential lack of generalizability, absence of data on certain confounders including alcohol consumption and prior history of motion sickness, potential underestimation of incidence of uncontrolled CINV, and inability to draw conclusions pertaining to cause and effect relationship.. In this retrospective hospital study, patients with hematologic malignancies treated with HEC or MEC and initiated on antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron in the hospital outpatient setting were more likely to experience significantly lower CINV event rates (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) versus patients initiated on other 5-HT₃ RAs.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Female; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Outpatients; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; United States; Vomiting; Young Adult

Despite favorable evidence from clinical trials for single-dose palonosetron versus other commercially available 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), clinical comparative data are scarce from hospital outpatient settings, where these antiemetic agents are used in patients diagnosed with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy (CTH).. The purpose of our retrospective study was to assess the hospital claims to evaluate the rate of uncontrolled CINV with antiemetic prophylaxis using palonosetron versus other 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists in patients diagnosed with cancer who are receiving CTH (highly emetogenic CTH, moderately emetogenic CTH, low-emetogenic CTH, or minimally emetogenic CTH) treatment in a hospital outpatient setting.. Patients aged ≥18 years who had cancer and were being treated with CTH and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) and other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (Group 2) for the first time between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2009, were identified using a hospital-service database. Within each CTH cycle, CINV events were identified through International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion (from Day 1 of each CTH administration until the end of the CTH cycle) or for use of rescue medications (Day 2 until the end of the CTH cycle). A multivariate regression model was developed to predict uncontrolled CINV event rates per CTH cycle between Groups 1 and 2 matched on CTH emetogenicity distribution in the study follow-up period (first of 8 cycles or 6 months). A subgroup analysis of patients on CTH with the highest risk of nausea and vomiting (highly emetogenic CTH or moderately emetogenic CTH) was also conducted.. Of 9144 identified patients, 1775 were prescribed palonosetron (Group 1). Group 1 patients were statistically younger (61.2 vs 62.8 years; P < 0.001), composed of more females (57.1% vs 51.9%; P < 0.001) and more whites (72.8% vs 71.4%; all races P < 0.001), received more highly emetogenic CTH treatments (43.3% vs 28.5%; all CTH P < 0.001), and had more lung (26.1% vs 22.4%) and breast cancer patients (19.3% vs 15.3%; all cancer P < 0.001). The regression model predicted a 13.7% decrease in CINV event rate per CTH cycle for Group 1 versus Group 2. For Subgroup 1, the model predicted a 12.5% decrease in the CINV event rate per cycle in Group 1 patients versus those in Group 2.. In this study, patients with cancer who were treated with CTH and on antiemetic prophylaxis using palonosetron were found to have significantly lower CINV event rates than those receiving other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists.

Topics: Adolescent; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Databases, Factual; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Multivariate Analysis; Nausea; Neoplasms; Outpatient Clinics, Hospital; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Regression Analysis; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting; Young Adult

It is recommended that patients initiate triple antiemetic therapy with one of the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) RAs), aprepitant (or its intravenous prodrug fosaprepitant) and dexamethasone prior to the start of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). However, the impact of 5-HT(3) RA selection within triple antiemetic regimens on the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with HEC has not been well studied.. To assess the likelihood of an uncontrolled CINV event following antiemetic prophylaxis with the 5-HT(3) RA palonosetron + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone (palonosetron cohort) versus any of the other 5-HT(3) RAs + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone (other 5-HT(3) RA cohort) among single-day HEC cycles.. Single-day HEC cycles (a gap of at least 5 days between two administrations) among patients with a cancer diagnosis and receiving antiemetic prophylaxis with the aforementioned regimens between 1/1/2006 and 6/30/2010 were identified from the IMS LifeLink claims database. Uncontrolled CINV events were identified through ICD-9-CM codes (nausea and vomiting), Current Procedural Terminology codes (hydration), rescue medications and/or use of antiemetic therapy from days 2-5 following HEC administration. Risks for an uncontrolled CINV event among all patients, and within breast cancer and multiple cancer subpopulations, were analyzed at cycle level using logistic multivariate regression models.. A total of 8018 cycles for the palonosetron cohort and 1926 cycles for the other 5-HT(3) RA cohort (3574 and 978 patients, respectively) were analyzed. Single-day HEC cycles received by the palonosetron cohort had a significantly lower unadjusted risk of an uncontrolled CINV event (17.5 vs 20.7% for the other 5-HT(3) RA cohort; p = 0.0010), with a 17% lower adjusted risk for palonosetron-administered cycles (odds ratio: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.73-0.94; p = 0.0042). Results in the breast cancer and multiple cancer subgroups were consistent with those for the overall population.. In this retrospective claims data analysis, single-day HEC cycles administered with palonosetron + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone had a lower risk for an uncontrolled CINV event versus other 5-HT(3) RAs + aprepitant/fosaprepitant + dexamethasone.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Databases, Factual; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Logistic Models; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Multivariate Analysis; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are major adverse reactions in cancer chemotherapy, and affect quality of life (QOL). We performed a retrospective study that examined the efficacy of aprepitant and palonosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on patients taking cisplatin doublets for lung cancer. The study subjects were 73 patients. A 5-HT(3) group received old-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists and dexamethasone for preventive treatment (32 patients). An A group received old-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, aprepitant and dexamethasone (22 patients). An A+P group received palonosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone (19 patients). On acute emesis (occurring within 24 hours after chemotherapy), there was no significant difference in the complete suppression rate of nausea and vomiting among the three groups. However, on delayed onset emesis (occurring between 24 to 120 hours), the complete suppression rate of nausea was significantly higher in the A+P group (57. 9%) than in the 5- HT(3) group (16. 7%) and A group (23. 8%). Significantly better efficacy was seen in the 5-HT(3) group and A group in the complete suppression rate of vomiting, and in the need of rescue medication rates on delayed-onset emesis. The cost of antiemesis was 19, 735 yen for the 5-HT(3) group, 32, 252 yen for the A group and 15, 557 yen for the A+P group. In conclusion, it was suggested that concurrent administration of palonosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone for CINV on cisplatin doublet in lung cancer is a clinically useful treatment that might reduce the economic burden on patients.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in prevention of chemotherapy (CT)-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving high-dose (HD)-CT with auto-SCT, and the efficacy of a second dose of palonosetron in treating breakthrough emesis. One hundred thirty-four patients treated with HD-CT and auto-SCT for hematologic malignancies received palonosetron as prophylaxis for CINV on the first day of conditioning; patients were also administered dexamethasone throughout the entire period of conditioning. If breakthrough emesis occurred, a second dose of palonosetron was administered at 72 h after the first administration. Complete response and complete protection were observed in 36 and 26% of patients, respectively. One-half of the patients, re-treated with palonosetron for breakthrough emesis, were successfully rescued. Treatment with palonosetron plus dexamethasone seems to be encouraging in terms of prophylaxis of CINV and treatment of breakthrough emesis in the setting of HD-CT.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Dexamethasone; Female; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Transplantation Conditioning; Transplantation, Autologous; Vomiting

Topics: Adolescent; Antiemetics; Bone Marrow Transplantation; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Infant; Isoquinolines; Male; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Topics: Adult; Anaphylaxis; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting may occur in a significant minority of patients following hepatic artery embolization with yttrium-90 spheres (K. T. Sato et al. Radiology 247:507-515, 2008). This encumbers human and economic resources and undercuts the assertion that it is as a well-tolerated outpatient treatment. A single intravenous dose of palonosetron HCl was administered before hepatic artery embolization with yttrium-90 spheres to ameliorate posttreatment nausea and vomiting, in 23 consecutive patients. The patients were discharged the day of procedure on oral antiemetics, steroids, and blockers of gastric acid release. All patients had clinical and laboratory evaluation at 2 weeks after the procedure. The data were gathered and reviewed retrospectively. At 2-week follow-up, none reported significant nausea, vomiting, additional antiemetic use, need for parenteral therapy, hospital readmission, or palonosetron-related side effects. All patients recovered from postembolization symptoms within a week after treatment. In conclusion, this retrospective study suggests that single-dose palonosetron is feasible, safe, and effective for acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in this group of patients. The added cost may be offset by benefits.

Topics: Embolization, Therapeutic; Feasibility Studies; Female; Hepatic Artery; Humans; Isoquinolines; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Retrospective Studies; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Yttrium Radioisotopes

The effect of manipulation of the serotonin (5-HT) system on conditioned gaping (presumably reflective of nausea in rats) was evaluated.. The potential of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), fluoxetine (which produces nausea in the clinic), to produce conditioned gaping in rats and of the 5-HT(3) antagonists (ondansetron and palonosetron) and the 5-HT(1A) autoreceptor agonist (8-OH-DPAT) to reverse this effect were evaluated.. In each of four experiments, rats received three pairings of intraorally delivered 17% sucrose solution and fluoxetine (0, 2, 10 or 20 mg/kg) and 72 h later were given a drug-free test trial. In experiment 2, rats were pretreated with the 5-HT(3) antagonists, ondansetron (0, 0.1 or 1.0 mg/kg) or the longer acting palonosetron (0.1 mg/kg), 30 min before each of three sucrose-fluoxetine (20 mg/kg) pairings. In experiment 3, rats were injected with palonosetron (0.1 mg/kg) 2 h before each of three sucrose-fluoxetine (20 mg/kg) or sucrose-lithium chloride (LiCl, 25 mg/kg) pairings. In experiment 4, rats were pretreated with the 5-HT(1A) autoreceptor agonist, 8-OH-DPAT (DPAT, 0.1 mg/kg) 30 min before each of three sucrose-fluoxetine (20 mg/kg) pairings.. After two sucrose-fluoxetine pairings, the highest dose of fluoxetine tested (20 mg/kg) produced conditioned gaping reactions. These conditioned gaping reactions were prevented by pretreatment with DPAT, but not with the 5-HT(3) antagonists. On the other hand, palonosetron administered 2 h prior to sucrose-LiCl pairings attenuated conditioned gaping reactions.. These results suggest that the conditioned nausea produced by SSRIs, but not LiCl, may be resistant to treatment with 5-HT(3) antagonists, but not 5-HT(1A) autoreceptor agonists.

Topics: 8-Hydroxy-2-(di-n-propylamino)tetralin; Animals; Antiemetics; Autoreceptors; Conditioning, Psychological; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Fluoxetine; Isoquinolines; Lithium Chloride; Male; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Serotonin 5-HT1 Receptor Agonists; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists

Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting

A clinical study of palonosetron was performed to evaluate its efficacy in preventing both acute and delayed emesis after high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) using a historical control group of patients treated with ondansetron as the comparative drug.. Among the 46 evaluated patients 20 with lymphoma received BEAM as the conditioning regimen; 16 has relapsed germ cell tumors treated with CARBOPEC; and 10 with acute myeloid leukemia received BuCY. Increasing severity of nausea was evaluated according to the following 4-grade scale: none (no nausea); mild (slight nausea but no disruption to daily activities); moderate (nausea and some disruption to daily activities); and severe (extreme nausea and severe disruption to daily activities). The emetic response rate was evaluated using the criteria: complete (no emetic episode); major (1-2 episodes); minor (3-5 episodes); and failure (>5 episodes). The response rate of the study drugs was evaluated by the following 4-grade scale based on the condition of nausea and vomiting: highly effective, moderately effective, slightly effective, and not effective.. Patients treated with palonosetron showed significantly greater response rates than those receiving ondansetron during the both the acute and the delayed phases: highly and moderately effective: acute phase 15% versus 5% CARBOPEC; 70% versus 35% BEAM and 32% versus 20% BuCY; delayed phase: 60% versus 30% BuCY; 100% versus 50% BEAM and 25% versus 10% CARBOPEC.. Single-dose palonosetron was more effective than ondansetron treatment to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting following HDC before HSCT.

Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carmustine; Emetics; Etoposide; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Isoquinolines; Lymphoma; Nausea; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Palonosetron is a new generation 5-HT3-receptor antagonist with a significantly prolonged half-life and a once-a-day administration compared to the conventional setrons. To evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of palonosetron in the daily hospital practice setting, a postmarketing study was carried out in Austria.. Palonosetron was administered at 0.25 mg on day 1 of each cycle to 135 cancer patients who received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy either as an IV bolus or as a short-term infusion. Two thirds of these patients were females (n = 90), the majority had breast cancer (n = 38) and the majority received cisplatin, carboplatin, anthracyclines, 5-fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide.. The complete antiemetic response rate was 68 % overall with 87 % efficacy on day 1 and 72 % efficacy on days 2 to 5. Higher antiemetic response was achieved in male patients, in patients being aged > or = 50 years, and in chemonaive patients. Twenty-four percent of patients needed rescue medication. Only 1.5 % of patients reported mild adverse events.. Palonosetron resulted in high antiemetic efficacy in this study. Female gender and age < or = 50 years should be particularly considered when the antiemetic regimen is selected.

Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Austria; Breast Neoplasms; Cancer Care Facilities; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Palonosetron; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Product Surveillance, Postmarketing; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Sex Factors; Surveys and Questionnaires; Time Factors; Vomiting

The 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists have become the cornerstone for preventing and treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Four 5-HT3 antagonists are commercially available in the United States, and numerous reports have been published comparing 2 or more agents. The studies ranged from randomized, double-blinded to open-label or retrospective trials; included chemotherapy-naïve and -non-naïve patients; and covered a range of doses and routes of administration with and without concomitant steroids, for preventing and treating nausea and vomiting after highly and moderately high emetogenic chemotherapy. With few exceptions, the studies uniformly show an equivalent efficacy rate and side effect profile among the various agents at equivalent doses. This article reviews the pharmacology of the class for insight into minor differences among the agents that could possibly influence drug selection for certain patients, and considers data on the absorption, half-life, metabolism, and receptor activity. Clinical trials support the claim of various guidelines that the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are therapeutically similar in safety and efficacy, particularly because the current best practice for preventing nausea and vomiting after highly and moderately high emetogenic chemotherapy is a combination of a 5-HT3 antagonist, steroids, and aprepitant.

Topics: Humans; Indoles; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinolizines; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Therapeutic Equivalency; Vomiting

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

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Comprehensive Health Care; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Isoquinolines; Models, Organizational; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Nurse's Role; Oncology Nursing; Palonosetron; Patient Care Team; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quinuclidines; Total Quality Management; Vomiting

Topics: Antiemetics; Granisetron; Humans; Indoles; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Ondansetron; Organoplatinum Compounds; Palonosetron; Quinolizines; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Effective antiemetic therapy is crucial for patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy for cancer. Severe nausea and vomiting associated with such cancer treatment can lead to anxiety, anorexia, dehydration, electrolyte disturbance and renal failure, and may interrupt cancer therapy, demoralise patients or even cause them to abandon treatment. In 1992, we welcomed the introduction of ondansetron, the first selective serotonin type 3- (5HT3-) receptor antagonist marketed in the UK, as an important advance in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Several selective 5HT3-receptor antagonists are now licensed. They are widely prescribed to patients receiving cancer treatment, but not always appropriately. Here we review their optimal use.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Child; Granisetron; Humans; Indoles; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Quinolizines; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Tropisetron; Vomiting

Topics: Antiemetics; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Ondansetron; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Vomiting

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Humans; Isoquinolines; Nausea; Palonosetron; Quinuclidines; Receptors, Serotonin; Vomiting