Control of nausea with palonosetron versus granisetron, both combined with dexamethasone, in patients receiving cisplatin- or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based regimens

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.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes and efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron in combination with dexamethasone in Egyptian patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

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.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) and dexamethasone for prevention of emesis in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide: a multi-cycle, phase II study

Background

NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle.

Methods

In this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12 mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2–4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined.

Results

Of the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552 cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio = 0.65–0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4).

Conclusion

The high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was maintained over multiple cycles of adjuvant AC for breast cancer. Preliminary evidence also suggests that patients achieving a CR during the overall period gain high protection even against very late CINV events in each chemotherapy cycle.

Trial registration

This trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03862144) on 05/Mar/2019.

Comparison of palonosetron and granisetron in triplet antiemetic therapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer patients receiving high emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, prospective, and observational study

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Comparison between Antiemetic Effects of Palonosetron and Granisetron on Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Japanese Patients Treated with R-CHOP

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.

Antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron or palonosetron alone and in combination with a corticosteroid for ABVD therapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background

Antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron or palonosetron alone and in combination with a corticosteroid against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma receiving adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) therapy.

Methods

A total of 39 patients were eligible for this study. Before ABVD therapy, granisetron or palonosetron was intravenously administered with or without a corticosteroid (dexamethasone or hydrocortisone) and aprepitant. The proportions of patients with complete control (CC) during the overall (0–120 h after the start of ABVD therapy), acute (0–24 h) and delayed (24–120 h) phases were evaluated. CC was defined as no vomiting and no use of antiemetic rescue medication with only grade 0–1 nausea.

Results

Granisetron and palonosetron were administered in 21 and 18 patients, respectively. The CC rate during the acute, delayed and overall phases was not statistically different between the two groups. The CINV was completely controlled during overall phase in 58.3% of patients receiving granisetron or palonosetron in combination with a corticosteroid, whereas in 11.1% of those without co-treatment of a corticosteroid (P < 0.05). There were significantly higher frequencies of anorexia, leucopenia and neutropenia in the palonosetron group. There is a statistically significant difference in the frequency of febrile neutropenia between presence and absence of a corticosteroid (p = 0.024).

Conclusion

These findings suggested that a combination use of a corticosteroid with a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist was preferable for CINV control in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma receiving ABVD therapy, although the careful management of febrile neutropenia is required.

Trial registration

The study approval numbers in the institution; 24–12 and 24–359. Registered April 17, 2012 and June 21, 2012.

Efficacy of Thalidomide in Preventing Delayed Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial (CLOG1302 study)

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/m2 regimens were randomly assigned to a THD group (100 mg twice daily on days 1 to 5) or placebo group, both with palonosetron (0.25 mg on day 1) and dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1; 8 mg on days 2 to 4). Primary end point was complete response to vomiting—no emesis or use of rescue medication—in the delayed phase (25 to 120 h). Nausea and anorexia on days 1 to 5 were evaluated by the 4-point Likert scale (0, no symptoms; 3, severe). Quality of life was assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 version 3 questionnaire on days −1 and 6.

Results

Of 656 patients, 638 were evaluable: 317 in the THD group and 321 in the control group. Compared with placebo, delayed and overall (0 to 120 h) complete response rates to vomiting were significantly higher with THD: 76.9% versus 61.7% ( P < .001) and 66.1% versus 53.3% ( P = .001), respectively. Rates of no nausea were also higher in the THD group (delayed: 47.3% v 33.3%; P < .001; overall: 41% v 29.6%; P = .003), and mean scores of anorexia were lower overall (0.44 ± 0.717 v 0.64 ± 0.844; P = .003). Adverse effects were mild to moderate. The THD group had increased sedation, dizziness, constipation, and dry mouth, but experienced better quality of life after chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Thalidomide combined with palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly improved HEC-induced delayed nausea and vomiting prevention in chemotherapy-naive patients.