Dexamethasone-sparing strategies in anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy with a focus on 5-HT3 receptor antagonists: a network meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness of a dexamethasone-sparing strategy in the treatment of breast cancer with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy when combined with first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) and neurokinin-1 RAs is unclear. This is attributable to a lack of evidence from direct comparison of multiple doses of DEX to a single dose of DEX in combination with first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy. Our goal was to clarify the impact of dexamethasone-sparing strategies that involve both first-generation 5-HT3 RAs and palonosetron when combined with neurokinin-1 RAs, using a network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods

A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline for articles published up to July 4, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of antiemetic regimens which combined 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone, with or without neurokinin-1 RAs, for the initial dose in anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy for patients with breast cancer. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response during the delayed phase (CR-DP).

Results

The difference in the proportion of patients achieving CR-DP between multiple and single doses of dexamethasone was 0.1% (95%CI: -12.4 to 12.5) with palonosetron and neurokinin-1 RAs, compared to 5.3% (95%CI: -13.4 to 23.0) with a single dose of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Additionally, the difference was 12.7% (95% CI: -2.8 to 28.2) when comparing palonosetron against first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in combination with a single dose of dexamethasone and neurokinin-1 RAs.

Conclusion

Palonosetron is recommended rather than a single dose of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs in dexamethasone-sparing strategies for anthracycline-cyclophosphamide therapy.

Effects of Palonosetron on Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Multiple-Day Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Study

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-HT₃ RAs) and second-generation 5-HT₃ RAs palonosetron in multiple-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The design of this study was a retrospective case-control study of patients who received a five-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy and were treated with aprepitant, dexamethasone, granisetron, and ramosetron or palonosetron. The patients were divided into two groups: patients given granisetron and ramosetron (the first-generation group), and those given palonosetron (palonosetron group). The percentage of patients with a complete response or total control was assessed. They were divided into three phases: 0-216 h (overall phase), 0-120 h (remedial phase), and 120-216 h (after phase). The remedial phase was further divided into 0-24 h (early phase) and 24-120 h (later phase). Moreover, the nutritional status of each patient was assessed by noting the patients' total calorie-intake per day and total parenteral nutrition. First-generation 5-HT₃ RAs and palonosetron were used for treatment in 18 and 28 patients, respectively. The complete response rate and caloric oral intake of the later phase were higher in the palonosetron group than in the first-generation group. We conclude that palonosetron treatment was more effective than first-generation 5-HT₃ RAs in controlling multiple-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Severity of constipation related to palonosetron during first-line chemotherapy: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

Palonosetron, a long-acting 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, is an effective antiemetic agent for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; however, it sometimes causes severe constipation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the severity of palonosetron-related constipation.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the incidence and severity of constipation after intravenous administration of 0.75-mg palonosetron in 150 chemotherapy-naïve patients who received first-line chemotherapy at Saga University Hospital. Constipation was classified into grades 1-5 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with palonosetron-related worsening of constipation to grade 2 or higher.

RESULTS

Palonosetron significantly increased the incidence and severity of constipation (incidence: before vs. after palonosetron, 35.4% vs. 74.0%, p < 0.0001, and severity: before vs. after palonosetron, 26.7% and 8.7% in grades 1 and 2, respectively, vs. 46.7%, 23.3%, and 4.0% in grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively, p < 0.0001). Despite the use of laxatives, 4.0% of patients had grade 3 constipation requiring manual evacuation. Combination treatment with aprepitant (odds ratio (OR), 10.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-90.0; p = 0.026) and older age (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.57; p = 0.039) were factors associated with the severity of constipation.

CONCLUSION

Constipation was more severe in patients receiving combination treatment with aprepitant than in those treated with palonosetron alone. Older age was also associated with increased risk of severe palonosetron-related constipation. Identification of risk factors can help target risk-based laxative therapy.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase 3 study of palonosetron vs granisetron combined with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer receiving anthracycline and cyclophosphamide

Purpose

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).

Patients and Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Effectiveness of Antiemetic Regimens for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

It is important to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) to maintain dose intensity and patients' quality of life. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines suggest combination therapy of antiemetic agents. The growing number of antiemetic regimens, and in particular the growing use of regimens containing antagonists to the Nk-1 receptor (NK1RAs) and the antipsychotic drug olanzapine (OLZ), call for the re-evaluation of the optimal regimen for CINV. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of antiemetic regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized trials that compared different antiemetic regimens were included. We strictly followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The main outcomes were the odds ratio (OR) for overall complete response (absence of vomiting). We conducted network meta-analysis within a Bayesian model to combine the direct and indirect evidence. Safety was assessed from the trial description. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We systematically reviewed 27 randomized control trials (13,356 participants), which compared 12 different antiemetic regimens: serotonin-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3), 5HT3 + dexamethasone (Dex), palonosetron (PAL), PAL + Dex, PAL at 0.75 mg (PAL0.75), PAL0.75 + Dex, NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex, NK1RA + PAL + Dex, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) + Dex, OLZ + 5HT3 + Dex, OLZ + PAL + Dex, and OLZ + NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex. An NK1RA + 5HT3 + Dex regimen and an NK1RA + palonosetron + Dex regimen gave a higher complete response (CR) rate than the reference regimen, 5HT3 + Dex (OR, 1.75; 95% credibility interval [95% CrI], 1.56-1.97, and OR, 2.25; 95% CrI, 1.66-3.03, respectively). A regimen containing NEPA was more effective in producing CR than conventional regimens without NEPA or olanzapine. Further analysis, based on the surface under the cumulative ranking probability curve, indicated that olanzapine-containing regimens were the most effective in producing CR.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis supports the conclusion that olanzapine-containing regimens are the most effective for CINV of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We confirmed that NK1RA + PAL + Dex is the most effective of conventional regimens. Substituting olanzapine for an Nk-1 receptor antagonist may offer a less costly and more effective alternative for patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy often pose difficulties for patients and doctors, making it hard to continue the proper therapy and to maintain the quality of life. This article gives insights into the optimal choice of medicine to treat nausea during chemotherapy. The findings reported here provide readers with a robust efficacy ranking of antinausea medicine, which can be used as a reference for the best possible treatment. Furthermore, the 70% less costly drug, olanzapine, is suggested to be equally effective to aprepitant in reducing nausea and vomiting. The possibility of offering a cost-effective treatment to a wider range of the population is discussed.

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.

Palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting after high-dose melphalan in autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma: A phase II study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant side effect in multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving high-dose melphalan treatment followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a triple antiemetic combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and low-dose dexamethasone in 24 MM patients who received melphalan conditioning (100 mg/m² on days 1-2) before ASCT (on day 4). Intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg on day 1), oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1; 80 mg on days 2-4), and intravenous dexamethasone (6.6 mg on days 1-4) were administered for prevention of CINV. Complete response (no emesis and no rescue antiemetic) and complete control (no emesis, no rescue antiemetic, and no more than mild nausea) rates were 75 and 68% during the overall phase (0-120 h), while they were 88 and 86% in the acute phase (0-48 h), 75 and 68% in the delayed phase (48-120 h), and 67 and 59% in the extended phase (120-168 h), respectively. There were no serious adverse events related to the antiemetic therapy. In conclusion, the three-antiemetic regimen consisting of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was safe and effective for controlling CINV due to high-dose melphalan treatment, especially during the delayed phase.

A prospective study of the antiemetic effect of palonosetron in malignant lymphoma patients treated with the CHOP regimen

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.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Pilot Study of Dose Comparison of Ramosetron to Prevent Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Purpose. This study was conducted to determine the optimal dose titration of ramosetron to prevent the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching (RINVR). Methods. Patients treated with folic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin were randomized into three groups (0.3 mg, 0.45 mg, and 0.6 mg ramosetron before chemotherapy). The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics using RINVR were evaluated. Results. Seventeen, 15, and 18 patients received ramosetron at doses of 0.3 mg, 0.45 mg, and 0.6 mg, respectively. T_max (h), C_max (ng/mL), and AUC_last (ng·h/mL) were associated with dose escalation significantly, showing a reverse correlation with the RINVR during chemotherapy. Acute CINV was observed in four patients (22.2%), two patients (14.3%), and one (5.6%) patient and a delayed CINV on day 7 was found in eight (47%), three (21.4%), and five (27.8%) patients in each group. The complete response rate was increased with dose escalation (35.3%, 50.0%, and 72.2% in each group) and also showed the tendency for decreasing moderate-to-severe CINV. Conclusions. This study shows a trend regarding the dose-response relationship for ramosetron to prevent CINV, including delayed emesis. It suggested that dose escalation should be considered in patients with CINV in a subsequent cycle of chemotherapy, and an individual approach using RINVR could be useful to monitor CINV.

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.

Open-label, randomized, comparative, phase III study on effects of reducing steroid use in combination with Palonosetron

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.

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.

The efficacy of triplet antiemetic therapy with 0.75 mg of palonosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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).

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Risk factors of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: index for personalized antiemetic prophylaxis

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.

Palonosetron: An Evidence-Based Choice in Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy

Aims and background

In 2003, the second-generation, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA) palonosetron was approved by the FDA for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. We reviewed the current knowledge on the role of palonosetron against acute and delayed emesis in patients with solid tumors undergoing single-day moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens.

Methods

A literature review in PubMed was performed to update currently available preclinical and clinical evidence on palonosetron, prioritizing randomized clinical trials.

Results

The distinct pharmacology of palonosetron provides a rationale behind the improved efficacy observed with the drug in prevention of delayed symptoms. This may be explained by allosteric binding properties and by palonosetron-triggered receptor internalization, which result in prolonged inhibition of the 5-HT3 receptor function. Very recent pharmacology experiments have also suggested that palonosetron would be able to differentially inhibit 5-HT3/neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor signaling cross-talk. In two recent meta-analyses, palonosetron was shown to be more effective than other available 5-HT3 RAs in preventing acute and delayed nausea and vomiting for both HEC and MEC. Recent findings also suggest that a single-day regimen of palonosetron plus dexamethasone (both drugs administered intravenously) may provide a reasonable therapeutic alternative to reduce the total dexamethasone dose administered in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Conclusions

On the basis of accumulating data, the evidence-based international guidelines devised from the major organizations have been recently updated to recommend the use of palonosetron plus 3-day dexamethasone for the optimal prevention of nausea and vomiting due to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. There is still a need to investigate the efficacy of palonosetron in combination with an NK-1 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in well-designed randomized trials.

Antiemetic Use in Oncology: Updated Guideline Recommendations from ASCO

In 2011, ASCO updated its guideline for the use of antiemetics in oncology, informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. This is an abbreviated version of that guideline, which is available in full at www.asco.org/guidelines/antiemetics. Key changes from the prior update in 2006 include the following: Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and an NK1 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-HT3 receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours following treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. Continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy is recommended. Clinicians often underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as vomiting. Detailed information about the development of the guideline as well as practice tools are available at www.asco.org/guidelines/antiemetics.

A phase III open-label study to assess safety and efficacy of palonosetron for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in repeated cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

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).

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

The extraordinary safety profile and maintenance of efficacy of 0.75 mg palonosetron combined with dexamethasone were demonstrated throughout repeated chemotherapy cycles.

Review of palonosetron: emerging data distinguishing it as a novel 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

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.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

History of antiemetics and palonosetron, including clinical trials and pharmacological research, and literature published between 1981 and 2010 are covered.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

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.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

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.

Palonosetron hydrochloride for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and 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.