Palonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in women receiving anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy: meta-analysis of individual patient data examining the effect of age on outcome in two phase III trials

Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

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).

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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 combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

A single-arm feasibility study of gradual dose de-escalation of antiemetic dexamethasone for older patients receiving chemotherapy

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether discontinuation of prophylactic dexamethasone by gradual dose de-escalation is practicable in older patients with cancer undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-arm, feasibility study prospectively enrolled 40 patients (≥70 years old) with colorectal cancer, who were scheduled to undergo adjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy, and ten patients ≤60 years old to serve as a control group for pharmacokinetic study. All patients received an antiemetic regimen consisting of intravenous dexamethasone 8 mg and palonosetron at day 1 of the first cycle and underwent phone interviews using symptom questionnaires at day 7 of each cycle. Dexamethasone was tapered off through gradual de-escalation by 2 mg per cycle, when complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue therapy) was achieved. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who discontinued dexamethasone completely.

RESULTS

The median age of the patient was 74 years, and 50% were male. Of the 40 patients, 36 completed twelve cycles of chemotherapy, and 73% (N = 29) were able to discontinue dexamethasone completely. The mean (±SD) dose of dexamethasone per cycle was 3.0 mg (±2.4 mg), which was reduced to 37.5% of the initial dose level. The severity of patient-reported nausea did not significantly change over chemotherapy cycle. Geriatric assessment revealed no decline in any domain and fasting blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c levels were not elevated after twelve cycles of chemotherapy, compared to the baseline.

CONCLUSION

Gradual dose de-escalation and discontinuation of prophylactic dexamethasone is feasible without compromising its antiemetic effect in older patients undergoing chemotherapy.

Patient-Related Risk Factors for Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review

Background

Studies have reported that patient-related factors significantly impact the risk of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV). The objective of this study was to analyze those risk factors of CINV through a systematic literature review.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE to identify articles that addressed patient-related risk factors of CINV through clinical studies.

Results

A total of 49 articles were selected for this study. A total of 28 patient-related risk-factors that significantly impact the risk of CINV were documented. Three factors are demographically related, 17 factors are intrinsic in nature and innate to patient's physiology or influenced by physiology, and eight factors are extrinsic in nature. At least five studies identified seven risk factors with notable summary odds ratio: history of nausea/vomiting (odds ratio: 3.13, 95% CI 2.40–4.07, p < 0.05), female sex (odds ratio: 2.79, 95% CI 2.26–3.44, p < 0.05), expectancy of CINV (odds ratio: 2.61, 95%CI 1.69–4.02, p < 0.05), younger age (odds ratio: 2.59, 95% CI 2.18–3.07, p < 0.05), anxiety (odds ratio: 2.57, 95% CI 1.94–3.40, p < 0.05), history of morning sickness (odds ratio: 1.97, 95% CI 1.46–2.65, p < 0.05), and low alcohol intake (odds ratio: 1.94, 95% CI 1.68–2.24, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Oncologists can use these factors prior to the initiation of a chemotherapy regimen to identify patients at risk for CINV, in order to focus on more comprehensive antiemetic treatment options for those high-risk patients. This may enable better outcomes and avoid complications.

Applicability of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Guidelines for Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Southeast Asia: A Consensus Statement

A meeting of regional experts was convened in Manila, Philippines, to develop a resource-stratified chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) management guideline. In patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy in general clinical settings, triple therapy with a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 [5-HT3]) antagonist (preferably palonosetron), dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for acute CINV prevention. In resource-restricted settings, triple therapy is still recommended, although a 5-HT3 antagonist other than palonosetron may be used. In both general and resource-restricted settings, dual therapy with dexamethasone (days 2 to 4) and aprepitant (days 2 to 3) is recommended to prevent delayed CINV. In patients treated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, dual therapy with a 5-HT3 antagonist, preferably palonosetron, and dexamethasone is recommended for acute CINV prevention in general settings; any 5-HT3 antagonist can be combined with dexamethasone in resource-restricted environments. In general settings, for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, corticosteroid monotherapy on days 2 and 3 is recommended. If aprepitant is used on day 1, it should be continued on days 2 and 3. Prevention of delayed CINV with corticosteroids is preferred in resource-restricted settings. The expert panel also developed CINV management guidelines for anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide combination schedules, multiday cisplatin, and chemotherapy with low or minimal emetogenic potential, and its recommendations are detailed in this review. Overall, these regional guidelines provide definitive guidance for CINV management in general and resource-restricted settings. These consensus recommendations are anticipated to contribute to collaborative efforts to improve CINV management in Southeast Asia.

Efficacy of triple antiemetic therapy (palonosetron, dexamethasone, aprepitant) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Recommended treatments for prevention of CINV vary among published guidelines, and optimal care for CINV caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy has not been established. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant for carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer scheduled for a first course of a carboplatin-containing regimen formed the study cohort. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron (0.75 mg, i.v.) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg, i.v.) on day 1, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not experience vomiting and did not require rescue medication [complete response (CR)] in the acute phase (0-24 h), late phase (24-168 h) and overall. Secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced no vomiting episodes and no more than mild nausea without the need for rescue medication [complete control (CC)].

RESULTS

Prevalence of a CR during the acute phase, delayed phase, and overall was 100, 91.9 and 91.9%, whereas that of CC was 100, 84.4 and 84.4%, respectively. The most common adverse event was mild constipation; severe adverse events related to antiemetic treatment were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant shows excellent effects in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving a carboplatin-containing regimen.

Age Affects the Mitigating Efficacy of Riboflavin Against Cisplatin-Induced Toxicity In Vivo

Cis-diamminedichloroplatinum (CP), a prominent anticancer drug, exerts toxic insults that are functional to various factors that compromise its antineoplastic activity. Riboflavin (RF) is an essential vitamin and photosensitizer that ameliorates CP-induced toxic insults in vivo in a dose-dependent manner. The aim of the present study is to investigate how age can influence the ameliorative effect of RF against CP-induced toxicity. Ninety male mice were divided into three age groups: young, adult, and old for the present investigation under an established treatment strategy with CP, RF, and their combinations under photoillumination for 1 mo. Their kidneys and serum samples were assessed for redox status [superoxide dismutase, catalase, reduced glutathione, malondialdehyde (MDA), carbonyl contents, and glutathione-S-transferase], biochemical analysis (renal function markers-nitric oxide), comet assay, and histopathology. The adult group showed not only the strongest resistance against the CP-induced toxicity but also the better ameliorative effect of RF followed by the young and old groups, respectively, with well-maintained redox status concomitant with the level of renal function markers, MDA, and carbonyl contents near the control values. Furthermore, comet assay and histopathological evaluation confirmed the results in a dose-dependent manner. Hence, age is an important patient-related factor that can influence the final clinical outcome under personalized chemoradiotherapy.

Economic evaluation of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in combination with dexamethasone for the prevention of 'overall' nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese adult patients

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.

Cheaper Options in the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common challenge in oncology practice for which there are expensive guideline-based treatment options. Although supportive care in cancer adds significantly to the overall cost, the discussion of unaffordability of anticancer treatment frequently only revolves around the targeted drugs and immunotherapies. In this review, we highlight the available cost-saving strategies and recent updates in preventing CINV in patients with cancer. This is the first work, to our knowledge, to review specifically the less expensive alternatives in CINV prevention, which is particularly important for those working in resource-limited settings. Whereas patients in these settings often cannot afford expensive antiemetics, we now have the science to offer cheaper, more affordable options without necessarily compromising efficacy.

Effect of increase in duration of aprepitant consumption from 3 to 6 days on the prevention of nausea and vomiting in women receiving combination of anthracycline/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy: A randomized, crossover, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Aprepitant is one of the effective antiemetic drugs that usually used for a period of 3 days for prevention of anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) induced nausea and vomiting. However, many patients still experience nausea and vomiting on days 3-5. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an increase in duration of aprepitant consumption from 3 to 6 days on the prevention of nausea and vomiting in women receiving AC chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

It was a randomized, crossover, controlled clinical trial. Women with breast cancer and scheduled to receive AC regimens were enrolled in this study. Enrolled patients were randomized into two groups. Group I received 3 days regimen of aprepitant in the first course of AC regimen chemotherapy and 6 days regimen of aprepitant in the second course; Group II received 6 days regimen followed by 3 days regimen. For nausea and vomiting assessment, we used Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group questionnaire.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were enrolled in this study. Sixty-three percent achieved a complete response with 6 days aprepitant regimen compared with 39% with 3 days regimen (P < 0.001). Ten percent had at least one vomiting episode during the 6 days regimen versus 15% with 3 days regimen (P = 0.034). Nausea was significantly more severe in 3 days regimen of aprepitant than in 6 days regimen.

CONCLUSION

Increase in the duration of aprepitant consumption through 6 days resulted in significantly better prevention of nausea and vomiting than 3 days consumption for women receiving AC chemotherapy.

Palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy

Introduction: The second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist palonosetron is effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC, respectively). In addition, palonosetron has been the first and, at present, the only 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist to have a specific indication for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with MEC. The unique pharmacology of this antagonist is thought to partly explain its improved efficacy against delayed symptoms.

Aims: To review the evidence underlying the use of palonosetron in preventing CINV.

Evidence review: A recent meta-analysis consistently showed that palonosetron significantly increases the control of both emesis and nausea during the acute and delayed phases after single-day HEC or MEC. Consistent with these findings from trials that did not include an neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist, randomized controlled trials recently showed that a triple combination with palonosetron achieves significantly better control of delayed CINV, particularly delayed nausea, in patients undergoing HEC or the high-risk combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC). Evidence from randomized studies also supports palonosetron as a valuable option to reduce the total corticosteroid dose administered in patients undergoing multiple cycles of MEC or AC chemotherapy. Additional benefits of palonosetron include the lack of a warning on cardiac safety and no known clinically significant drug–drug interactions.

Place in therapy and conclusion: Evidence currently available indicates that palonosetron significantly adds to the clinician’s ability to effectively control CINV in patients undergoing HEC or MEC. It is recommended in the international guidelines for the prevention of CINV caused by MEC. The high safety profile and the opportunity to reduce the total corticosteroid dose with no loss in efficacy against delayed CINV should also contribute to a wider use of palonosetron in clinical practice.

Should clinicians always administer dexamethasone beyond 24 h after chemotherapy to control delayed nausea and vomiting caused by moderately emetogenic regimens? Insight from the re-evaluation of two randomized studies

Purpose

Data from two noninferiority trials of a dexamethasone-sparing regimen were assessed for the impact of acute nausea and vomiting on delayed outcome in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC).

Methods

Chemo-naive patients were randomized to receive palonosetron (0.25 mg IV) plus dexamethasone (8 mg IV) on day 1 of chemotherapy, or the same regimen followed by oral dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 in the MEC (n = 237) and AC (n = 380) cohorts. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether or not they experienced vomiting and/or moderate-to-severe nausea during the acute phase (high- and low-risk groups, respectively). Primary efficacy endpoint was the complete protection (CP) against delayed vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea. Patient’s satisfaction (0–100 mm visual analog scale) was also analyzed.

Results

Among the 209 low-risk patients undergoing MEC, delayed CP occurred in 82.9 % of those who received single-dose dexamethasone and 89.8 % of those who received 3-day dexamethasone (P = 0.165). Of the 271 low-risk patients undergoing AC, CP was achieved in 71.7 % of those treated with single-dose dexamethasone and 84.2 % treated with 3-day dexamethasone (P = 0.019). In spite of these observations, the patient satisfaction data was not influenced by dexamethasone regimen. In both cohorts, occurrence of acute vomiting or moderate-to-severe nausea was the key independent-predictor for delayed vomiting or nausea, respectively.

Conclusions

The dexamethasone-sparing regimen provides adequate delayed protection in patients undergoing MEC who are at low risk for delayed symptoms, and can still be discussed for low-risk AC patients as the daily difference in control is modest. Additional dexamethasone doses can be customized on the basis of occurrence or absence of acute symptoms in the first cycle of MEC and even AC.

Recent developments in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a comprehensive review

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been revolutionized over the past 25 years. Guideline-based treatment means that vomiting can be prevented in the majority, but not in all patients. Therefore, antiemetic research continues with the goal of optimizing CINV control for all patients. This comprehensive review summarizes the research efforts in this field over the past few years. Emerging from this research are two new antiemetic agents, netupitant/palonosetron, the first antiemetic combination agent and rolapitant, a new NK1RA. In addition, studies have evaluated the benefits of olanzapine and ginger, explored optimal combinations of agents for delayed CINV prevention, confirmed that dexamethasone-sparing regimens are effective, and demonstrated the value of NK1RAs in high-dose chemotherapy settings as well as with certain moderately emetogenic chemotherapies such as carboplatin. Research has also validated the correlation between antiemetic guideline adherence and improved CINV control. Finally, regulatory authorities have utilized extreme caution in retiring some 5-HT3RAs or decreasing their maximum dose.

Palonosetron in combination with 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Review of oral fixed-dose combination netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and 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.

Cyclophosphamide causes activation of protein kinase A (PKA) in the brainstem of vomiting least shrews (Cryptotis parva)

Complete control of emesis caused by cyclophosphamide (CPA) is of immense interest to both patients and physicians. Serotonin 5-HT3- and tachykinin NK1-receptor antagonists are widely used antiemetics in clinic, but they fail to completely control CPA-induced emesis. New antiemetic targets for the full control of CPA-induced vomiting are lacking. We therefore examined the effects of CPA on emetic targets downstream of 5-HT3- and NK1- receptors in an attempt to better understand the molecular bases of CPA-induced emesis. Acute CPA (200 mg/kg, i.p.) administration in the least shrew caused a biphasic pattern of emesis over a 40 h observation period, with maximal peak vomit frequency during the 1st hour of treatment (acute phase), followed by a delayed-phase which peaks at 27th hour. The NK1 receptor mRNA levels increased significantly at 8 h post-CPA treatment in the brainstem, and at 28 h in the whole intestine. Substance P mRNA levels tended to increase both in the brainstem and intestine at most time-points post-CPA injection, however due to large variability, they failed to attain significance. Likewise, protein expression profiles of both NK1- and 5-HT3 -receptors in the brainstem were unchanged at any time-point. However, phosphorylation levels of protein kinase A (PKA), but not of extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2), were increased at 2, 8, 22, 28, and 33 h time-points after the treatment with CPA. Moreover, brainstem but not frontal cortex cAMP tissue levels tended to be elevated at most time-points, but significant increases occurred only at 1 and 2 h post-CPA treatment. The phosphodiesterase inhibitor, rolipram, caused significant increases in shrew brainstem cAMP levels which were associated with its capacity to produce vomiting, while pretreatment with SQ22536, an inhibitor of adenylyl cyclase, prevented rolipram-induced emesis. The results demonstrate that accumulation of cAMP and subsequent activation of PKA in the brainstem may help to initiate and sustain emesis induced by CPA in the least shrew. Our findings suggest that suppression of the cAMP/PKA cascade may have antiemetic potential in the management of CPA-induced emesis.

Addressing the value of novel therapies in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troubling side effect of cancer treatment and is often poorly controlled. As a consequence, CINV is associated with substantially increased costs of care and significant interference with patients' lives. Inadequate control over CINV results from factors that include failure to provide guideline-adherent prophylactic medication and limitations in available therapies. Newer serotonin receptor antagonists, such as palonosetron, and addition of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists to treatment have significantly decreased both acute and delayed CINV. A fixed-dose combination of palonosetron and a new NK-1 receptor, netupitant, is significantly superior to palonosetron alone and has small, but consistent, numerical advantages over aprepitant plus palonosetron for prevention of CINV. The combination of a serotonin receptor antagonist plus an NK-1 receptor antagonist has been shown to be cost-effective for prevention of CINV and the availability of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron may enhance this benefit.

Palonosetron plus dexamethasone in highly emetogenic chemotherapy: pooled data from two Phase III trials

Aim: Data from two randomized trials were pooled to further characterize the effectiveness of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone in the setting of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients & methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

Palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and 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.