Aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy

Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab(R-CHOP) is one of the standard regimens. Given that R-CHOP is highly emetogenic, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention is clinically important. However, there is a paucity of studies focusing on these patients. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in preventing CINV in patients with DLBCL undergoing first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy. Seventy patients were enrolled in this single-center prospective non-comparative study conducted between November 2020 and May 2023 in South Korea. NEPA was administered 1 h prior to chemotherapy initiation on day 1. The primary endpoint of the study was the complete response rate (no emesis, and no rescue medication) during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, which were assessed over a period of 120 h post-chemotherapy. The complete response rates for NEPA were 90.0% [95% CI 80.5, 95.9] for the acute phase, 85.7% [95% CI 75.3, 92.9] for the delayed phase, and 84.3% [95% CI 73.6, 91.9] for the overall phase, with no-emesis rates (acute: 97.1% [95% CI 97.1, 99.7], delayed: 95.7% [95% CI 88.0, 99.1], overall: 92.9% [95% CI 84.1, 97.6]). NEPA was well tolerated with no severe treatment-emergent adverse events. NEPA exhibited substantial efficacy in mitigating CINV in DLBCL patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy, demonstrating high CR and no-emesis rates, and favorable safety profiles.

Subjective Toxicity Profiles of Children With Cancer During Treatment: A Latent Class Analysis

BACKGROUND

Children and adolescents may experience a variety of subjective adverse events (AEs) caused by cancer treatment. The identification of distinct groups of patients is crucial for guiding symptomatic AE management interventions to prevent AEs from worsening.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify subgroups of children with cancer experiencing similar patterns of subjective toxicities and evaluate differences among these subgroups in demographic and clinical characteristics.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted of 356 children in China with malignancies who received chemotherapy within the past 7 days using the pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. A latent class analysis (LCA) was conducted to identify subgroups of patients with distinct profiles of symptomatic AE occurrence.

RESULTS

Nausea (54.5%), anorexia (53.4%), and headache (39.3%) were the top 3 AEs children experienced. Nearly all participants (97.8%) experienced ≥1 core AEs, and 30.3% experienced ≥5 AEs. The LCA results identified 3 subgroups ("high gastrotoxicity and low neurotoxicity" [53.2%], "moderate gastrotoxicity and high neurotoxicity" [23.6%], and "high gastrotoxicity and high neurotoxicity" [22.8%]). The subgroups were differentiated by monthly family per-capita income, time since diagnosis, and Karnofsky Performance Status score.

CONCLUSIONS

Children experienced multiple subjective toxicities during chemotherapy, especially gastrotoxicity and neurotoxicity. Heterogeneity was found in the LCA in the patients' toxicities. The prevalence of toxicities could be distinguished by the children's characteristics.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results showing different subgroups in our study may assist clinical staff in focusing on patients with higher toxicities to provide effective interventions.

Associations of plasma aprepitant and its N-dealkylated metabolite with cachexia status and clinical responses in head and neck cancer patients

PURPOSE

Oral aprepitant has a large interindividual variation in clinical responses in advanced cancer. This study aimed to characterize plasma aprepitant and its N-dealkylated metabolite (ND-AP) based on the cachexia status and clinical responses in head and neck cancer patients.

METHODS

Fifty-three head and neck cancer patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy with oral aprepitant were enrolled. Plasma concentrations of total and free aprepitant and ND-AP were determined at 24 h after a 3-day aprepitant treatment. The clinical responses to aprepitant and degrees of cachexia status were assessed using a questionnaire and Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS).

RESULTS

Serum albumin level was negatively correlated with the plasma concentrations of total and free aprepitant but not ND-AP. The serum albumin level had a negative correlation with the metabolic ratio of aprepitant. The patients with GPS 1 or 2 had higher plasma concentrations of total and free aprepitant than those with GPS 0. No difference was observed in the plasma concentration of ND-AP between the GPS classifications. The plasma interleukin-6 level was higher in patients with GPS 1 or 2 than 0. The absolute plasma concentration of free ND-AP was higher in patients without the delayed nausea, and its concentration to determine the occurrence was 18.9 ng/mL. The occurrence of delayed nausea had no relation with absolute plasma aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients with a lower serum albumin and progressive cachectic condition had a higher plasma aprepitant level. In contrast, plasma free ND-AP but not aprepitant was related to the antiemetic efficacy of oral aprepitant.

Prolonged administration of aprepitant improves cisplatin-based chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Aims: To determine the antiemetic efficacy of a 6-day aprepitant schedule in patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin. Patients & methods: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer and who were chemotherapy naive were screened. The patients willing to use aprepitant were randomly divided into two groups: prolonged use of aprepitant (PA; 6-day aprepitant) and standard use of aprepitant (SA; 3-day aprepitant); the patients who rejected aprepitant were recruited into the control group (group C). Primary end points included the safety and the number of days without chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results: There was no statistical difference in adverse events among the three groups. The average days without chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting of group PA (18.28 ± 3.35) was significantly longer than in groups SA and C. Furthermore, better life function scores were achieved in group PA according to the Functional Living Index - Emesis questionnaire. Conclusion: In this study 6-day aprepitant was safe and more effective than standard 3-day aprepitant in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to 3-day cisplatin regimens.

Olanzapine (5 mg) plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of multiple-day cisplatin hemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a prospective randomized controlled study

Objective

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare 5 mg olanzapine plus standard triple antiemetic therapy for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy.

Methods

Patients who received a 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (25 mg/m²/d) were given either 5 mg olanzapine plus triple therapy with aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (quadruple group) or 5 mg olanzapine plus tropisetron and dexamethasone, omitting aprepitant (triplet group). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) in the overall phase (OP) (0–120 h) between quadruple group and triplet group. The secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute phase (AP) (0–24 h) and delayed phase (DP) (25–120 h) between two groups. The first time of vomiting was also compared by Kaplan–Meier curves. The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Aprepitant-related adverse effects (AEs) were also recorded.

Results

(1) The primary endpoint CR during OP was 76.0% (45/59) vs 67.0% (41/61) between the quadruple group and triplet group (P = 0.271). The secondary endpoint CR during the AP was significantly higher in the quadruple group than in the triplet group, which was 100.0% (59/59) vs 93.0% (57/61) (P = 0.045). The difference of CR during delayed phase between the groups was especially higher in the quadruple group compared to the triplet group (76.0% (45/59) vs 67.0% (41/61) (P = 0.271)). The rate of patients who achieved total protection in the overall phase was also higher in the quadruple group than the triplet group (28.8% (17/59) vs 23.0% (14/61) (P = 0.463)). During the OP, the incidence of no vomiting in the quadruple group and the triplet group was 93.2% (55/59) vs 80.3% (49/61) (P = 0.038), respectively. (2) Kaplan–Meier curves of time to first emesis were obviously longer in the quadruple group compared with the triplet group (P = 0.031). According to FLIE, no impact of CINV on daily life was defined as total score of questionnaire > 108; this study exhibited identical life quality between two groups. (3) The most common aprepitant- or olanzapine-related AEs included sedation, fatigue, and constipation. The occurrences between two groups were identical.

Conclusion

It may been recommended that 5 mg olanzapine plus tropisetron and dexamethasone, omitting aprepitant triplet regimen as an alternative therapy in prevention CINV induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy due to the excellent CINV control rate and safety.

A Comparison of the Efficacy of 5 mg Olanzapine and Aprepitant in the Prevention of Multiple-Day Cisplatin Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

OBJECTIVE

The significance of this article is to talk about aprepitant and olanzapine 5 mg, compare them, and deeply explore the safety or effectiveness during the whole process of multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy-induced vomiting and nausea.

METHODS

This trial was randomized and prospective. It is needed to receive cisplatin chemotherapy (25 mg/m2/d) for three days. Its patients would need to choose to use 5 mg olanzapine or aprepitant for this treatment, combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonist plus dexamethasone. The primary endpoints were the total protection (TP) during the acute phase (AP) (0-24 hours), delayed phase (DP) (25-120 hours), and overall phase (OP) (0-120 h) between the two groups. The secondary endpoints were the complete response (CR) and total control (TC) during the three phases. The first time of the whole process is particularly important and needs to be observed vigorously. However, the time of the patient's first vomiting symptom is also compared accurately by using the Kaplan-Meier curve. The functional life index vomiting (FLIE) was used to calculate and carefully evaluate the serious impact of nausea and vomiting (CINV) induced by the whole chemotherapy process on the quality of life. About olanzapine, its related symptoms and other side effects and aprepitant were also recorded.

RESULTS

(1) The primary endpoint TP rates of the olanzapine and aprepitant groups were similar; for the AP, they were 94.23% (98/104) vs. 95.45% (98/106) P=0.61(P=0.61); for the DP, they were 54.81% (57/104) vs. 54.72% (58/106) (P=0.99), and for the OP, the values were 53.79% (58/105) and 55.31% (56/104), respectively (P=0.99). The secondary endpoints, the TC rates, and CR rates were also comparable in the three phases (P > 0.05). (2) After research and display, the results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups when they were used for the first time of vomiting and the FLIE index (P > 0.05). (3) The main olanzapine-related adverse event was drowsiness, while that of aprepitant was constipation.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of 5 mg olanzapine was similar to that of aprepitant, and it also showed an advantageous economic potency ratio in preventing CINV induced by multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy with increased sedation side effects.

Creation of a chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting dashboard to improve outcomes for pediatric cancer patients

PURPOSE

Two of the most common acute side effects of chemotherapy are nausea and vomiting. Nausea and vomiting impact quality of life, nutritional status, and ability to tolerate further chemotherapy. Parents of pediatric oncology patients rank nausea as one of the most bothersome treatment-related symptoms.

METHODS

Utilizing Quality Improvement methodology, we developed a dashboard interface to facilitate extraction of data from the electronic medical record (EMR), which is presented via a visual display that summarizes the type of chemotherapy and antiemetic medications, use of as needed medications, and number of episodes of emesis.

RESULTS

This dashboard interface allows for rapid and efficient identification of patients whose antiemetic regimen is mismatched for the emetogenicity of ordered chemotherapy, thus providing a timely opportunity to modify the antiemetic regimen based on published guidelines before administration of chemotherapy drugs. It also allows measurement of the effectiveness of the antiemetic regimen in terms of the number of break through emesis and the need for as needed medications.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel CINV dashboard was created, which visually conveys complex information about antiemetics, chemotherapy emetogenicity, as needed medications, and breakthrough vomiting for inpatient pediatric oncology patients.

Effectiveness and safety of combined neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant treatment for multiple-day anthracycline-induced nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of combined neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant treatment for multiple-day anthracycline chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

One hundred patients with breast cancer from department of Medical Oncology of Ordos Central Hospital from June 2015 to February 2018 were selected and randomize subdivided into 2 groups. All cases received anthracycline (30 mg/m²/d for pirarubicin or 45 mg/m²/d for epirubicin) and cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy, along with either the standard therapy (dexamethasone and tropisetron) or the combined aprepitant therapy (aprepitant plus dexamethasone and tropisetron). The results of the observation between groups were presented by complete response in the overall phase (OP, 0-120 hours), acute phase (AP, 0-24 hours) and delay phase (DP, 25-120 hours). The Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted to exhibit the first time of vomiting, Functional Living Index-Emesis of patients' quality of life, and therapy-related adverse effects (AEs).

RESULTS

The complete response of OP, AP, and DP were statistically different between aprepitant group and standard group (80.0% vs 48%, P = 0.001; 92.0% vs 74%, P = 0.017; 80.0% vs 48%, P = 0.001). The aprepitant group held a longer time reaching the first emesis after the relevant treatment than the standard group. The Functional Living Index-Emesis increased significantly in the aprepitant group compared with the standard group (24% vs 8.3%, P = 0.029). Fatigue and constipation were the only AEs of aprepitant, since no significant differences were observed in fatigue between the 2 groups (72% vs 70%, P = 0.826), while the incidence of constipation of aprepitant group was higher than the standard group (48% vs 28%, P = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

Combined aprepitant therapy is efficient and safe in the multiple-day anthracycline chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control and is recommended for the clinical use.

Evaluation of a Neurokinin-1 Antagonist in Preventing Multiple-day Cisplatin-induced Nausea and Vomiting

Objective

To perform a prospective non-randomized comparison of the effectiveness and safety of combined neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant treatment with the standard multiple-day cisplatin regimen for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods

Patients being administered 3-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy (25 mg/m²/d) who had never received aprepitant were given either the standard regimen (tropisetron and dexamethasone) or the aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus tropisetron and dexamethasone). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) in the overall phase (OP, 0–120 h) between the combined aprepitant triple regimen group and the standard group. Secondary endpoints were the CR in the acute phase (AP, 0–24 h) and delay phase (DP, 25–120 h) between the two groups. The first time of vomiting was also compared by Kaplan–Meier curves. The impact of CINV on the quality of life was assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). Aprepitant-related adverse effects (AEs) were also recorded.

Results

A CR was achieved by 80.0% in the aprepitant group compared with 56.0% in the standard group during the OP (P =0.018)as well as during the DP. However, during the AP, the aprepitant and standard therapy groups achieved identical CR rates (98.0%, P =1.000). A longer time to first emesis was documented for the aprepitant group than for the standard group. No effect of CINV on quality of life as assessed by FLIE was reported by 44.7% of aprepitant therapy patients and 24.0% of standard therapy patients (P=0.035). The main aprepitant-related AEs were fatigue and constipation, but there was no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion

Combined aprepitant therapy is recommended for the prevention of multiple-day CINV because of its improved CINV control rate and safety.

Safety of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron (NEPA): Pooled Data From the Phase II/III Clinical Program

BACKGROUND

Standard prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with highly emetogenic and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy includes a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), and corticosteroid therapy. NEPA is a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron. The primary objective of this analysis was to document the safety profile, including cardiac safety, of NEPA + dexamethasone in comparison with current therapies across all phase II/III trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This pooled analysis was based on data from 3,280 patients in 4 randomized, double-blind clinical trials. Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 pooled groups on the basis of actual treatment received: NEPA + dexamethasone, palonosetron + dexamethasone, and aprepitant + ondansetron/palonosetron + dexamethasone. Safety was assessed by number and frequency of adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline electrocardiogram measures.

RESULTS

Most patients were female and younger than 65 years of age. Demographic characteristics varied among studies and pooled groups. Frequencies of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar across groups. TEAEs were mostly mild and consistent with expected chemotherapy and disease-related AEs (hematologic events, hair loss, general weakness). TRAEs in ≥2% of patients were headache and constipation. Frequencies of cardiac TEAEs were similar across groups, with QT prolongation (1.6%), tachycardia (1.1%), and dyspnea (0.9%) the most common. Serious cardiac TEAEs were rare.

CONCLUSION

NEPA was well-tolerated, with an AE profile as expected for the regimen. Sample size, demographic characteristics, study design, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimen differences across the four studies may have contributed to differences in frequencies of neutropenia and alopecia. Adding an NK1RA to a CINV prophylaxis regimen can improve outcomes without additional toxicity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Supportive care for cancer should ideally be efficacious, convenient, and well-tolerated. There have been concerns about cardiac safety with current antiemetic prophylactic agents, namely dolasetron and ondansetron. This pooled safety analysis demonstrates that the new oral fixed combination therapy NEPA can be safely added to an antiemetic regimen without increased toxicity.

Gender Differences in Hiccup Patients: Analysis of Published Case Reports and Case-Control Studies

CONTEXT

Although sporadic male predominance in hiccup patients has been reported, the association between gender differences and triggering factors has rarely been evaluated in patients with hiccups.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate whether gender differences exist in hiccup patients by analyzing all previously published hiccup literature containing gender and etiology information.

METHODS

Published literature on this topic was identified using a standardized search strategy in the PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL electronic databases. The literature search included studies published from January 1990 to December 2013. Searches were limited to English-language publications. Of 476 identified studies, 318 studies were eligible including eight case-control studies that contained nonhiccup control groups. Triggering factors for hiccups were categorized into two types: central nervous system (CNS) and non-CNS causes. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for the eight case-control studies and event rates for the other studies by meta-analysis. In addition, gender differences and mean ages were analyzed for the case studies.

RESULTS

Pooled OR was 2.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-4.17) with inclination for male predominance. Subgroup analysis by cause showed clear male predominance in the non-CNS type with OR of 11.72 (95% CI 3.16-43.50), whereas indistinct in the CNS type with OR of 1.74 (95% CI 0.95-3.16). Of the remaining 310 studies with 864 patients, previous findings were consistent. Male predominance was consistent in non-CNS (85.1%, 95% CI 78.2-90.2) and unknown origin (82.2%, 95% CI 75.8-87.2) patients, whereas mitigating the sex discrepancy in those with CNS origin (65.8%, 95% CI 53.1-76.5).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated male predominance in hiccup patients. This gender difference for hiccups was more pronounced in patients with non-CNS causes, whereas indistinct in patients with CNS causes.

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.

Aprepitant in the prevention of vomiting induced by moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is a major therapeutic approach for malignant neoplasms; however, due to the most common adverse events of nausea and vomiting, scheduled chemotherapeutic programs may be impeded or even interrupted, which severely impairs the efficacy. Aprepitants, 5-HT3 antagonists and dexamethasone are primary drugs used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). These drugs have excellent efficacy for control of acute vomiting but are relatively ineffective for delayed vomiting. Aprepitant may remedy this deficiency. Substance P was discovered in the 1930s and its association with vomiting was confirmed in the 1950s. This was followed by a period of non-peptide neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist synthesis and investigation in preclinical studies and clinical trials (phases I, II and III). The FDA granted permission for the clinical chemotherapeutic use of aprepitant in 2003. At present, the combined use of aprepitant, 5-HT3 antagonists and dexamethasone satisfactorily controls vomiting but not nausea. Therefore, new therapeutic approaches and drugs are still needed.

Reviewing current and emerging antiemetics for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

This review provides background information on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) classification and pathophysiology and reviews various antiemetic agents for CINV prophylaxis, including corticosteroids, serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RAs), and olanzapine. Other less commonly used agents are briefly discussed. Practical considerations are reviewed as well, including emetogenicity of chemotherapeutic regimens, patient-specific risk factors for CINV, principles of CINV management, health economics outcome research, and quality of life. Available data on the newly FDA-approved antiemetic combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is also reviewed. Prevention of CINV is an important goal in managing patients with cancer and is especially difficult with respect to nausea and delayed CINV. Corticosteroids are a mainstay of CINV prophylaxis and are usually given in combination with other therapies. The 5-HT3 RA palonosetron has shown increased efficacy over other agents in the same class for prevention of delayed emesis with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NK1 RAs improve emesis prevention in combination with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone. Olanzapine has shown efficacy for CINV prophylaxis and the treatment of breakthrough CINV. The new combination therapy, NEPA, has been shown to be efficacious for the prevention of acute, delayed, and overall CINV. Risk factors that have been identified for CINV include gender, age, and alcohol intake. It is important to assess the emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens as well as the potential impact of patient risk factors in order to provide adequate prophylaxis. Acute and delayed CINV are severe, burdensome side effects of chemotherapy; however, new data on prevention and the discovery of new agents can further improve CINV control.

Update on the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting - focus on palonosetron

Purpose

Nausea and vomiting are major adverse effects of chemotherapy and can greatly impact patients’ quality of life. Although chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevalence is high, treatment remains difficult. Palonosetron is a 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (5-HT₃RA) approved for treatment of CINV. The purpose of this review is to discuss existing and emerging therapeutic options, and examine studies focusing on palonosetron with regards to efficacy, pharmacology, tolerability, safety, and patient-derived outcomes.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify relevant studies using palonosetron alone or in combination with other antiemetics. Studies were extracted if they included complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no nausea, no vomiting, and no rescue medications as an endpoint. Studies were also included if safety endpoints were examined.

Results

Palonosetron alone has been shown to improve CR and CC rates for patients receiving low, moderate, or high emetogenic chemotherapy. Rates were further improved with the addition of dexamethasone, a corticosteroid. Furthermore, the addition of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, such as netupitant markedly improved efficacy profiles compared to palonosetron alone. Aprepitant is an antiemetic that has exhibited positive results in combination with palonosetron. Recently, a new drug consisting of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) has demonstrated significantly more efficacious prevention of CINV. Regardless of the combination, palonosetron has been well tolerated. The most common adverse events were constipation, headache, fatigue, and dizziness, with the majority of patients describing them as only mild or moderate.

Conclusion

Palonosetron, alone or with other antiemetics, has improved CINV treatment due to its ability to significantly reduce delayed phases of CINV, compared to similar 5-HT₃RAs. Palonosetron is both more effective than first generation 5-HT₃RAs and safer, as it results in a smaller prolongation of the QTc interval, compared to other 5-HT₃RAs.

Phase II, open label, randomized comparative trial of ondansetron alone versus the combination of ondansetron and aprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients with hematologic malignancies receiving regimens containing high-dose cytarabine

Background. Aprepitant is a P/neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist approved for the prevention of CINV in moderate emetic risk chemotherapy. We explored its effectiveness in patients with leukemia receiving cytarabine-based chemotherapy. Methods. Patients were randomized to ondansetron (OND) 8 mg IV 30 minutes before cytarabine followed by 24 mg IV continuous infusion daily until 6-12 hours after the last dose of chemotherapy alone or with aprepitant (APREP) oral 125 mg 6-12 hrs before chemotherapy and 80 mg daily until 1 day after the last dose of chemotherapy. Results. Forty-nine patients were enrolled in each arm; 42 in OND and 41 in OND + APREP arm were evaluable for efficacy. The ORR with OND + APREP was 80% compared to 67% with OND alone (P = 0.11). On days 6 and 7, higher proportion of patients treated with OND + APREP were free from nausea (74%, 74% versus 68%, 67%; P = 0.27 and 0.18, resp.). Requirement of rescue medications on days 2 and 3 was fewer in OND + APREP arm 7% and 5% compared to 21% and 16% in the OND arm, respectively (P = 0.06 and P = 0.07). Conclusions. There was a trend for overall improvement in emesis with ondansetron plus aprepitant. The potential benefit of this approach with specific chemotherapy combinations remains to be determined.

Palonosetron in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a key component of treatment for patients with cancer. Guidelines are available to assist prescribers in the management of CINV associated with single-day chemotherapy regimens. However, currently there are no clear guidelines for management of CINV in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy regimens. Serotonin (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists are a mainstay in preventing CINV, and palonosetron, given its longer half-life and duration of action relative to other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, may be a useful option for managing CINV in multiple-day chemotherapy. Here we provide an overview of CINV and CINV treatment options, with a focus on palonosetron. We describe existing challenges in managing CINV, and discuss two patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy, in whom CINV was managed successfully with palonosetron.

Safety of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists

INTRODUCTION

The substance P (SP)/neurokinin (NK)-1 receptor system is involved in many pathological processes. NK-1 receptor antagonists have many promising therapeutic indications. However, the only NK-1 receptor antagonist used in clinical practice is the drug aprepitant and its intravenously administered prodrug, fosaprepitant. In general, NK-1 receptor antagonists are safe and well tolerated.

AREAS COVERED

A search was carried out in Medline using the following terms: adverse events, aprepitant, casopitant, clinical trials, CP-122,721, ezlopitant, fosaprepitant, NK-1 receptor antagonists, randomized, safety, side effects, tolerability and vofopitant.

EXPERT OPINION

Most clinical trials have focused on the antiemetic action of aprepitant in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. However, the efficacy and safety of aprepitant have not been fully tested in other diseases in which the SP/NK-1 receptor system is involved (e.g., cancer, HIV, alcoholism); thus, clinical trials are required. The use of NK-1 receptor antagonists in oncology therapy is quite promising, but to date pharmacological therapy has not exploited the many possible therapies offered by such antagonists.

An update on palonosetron hydrochloride for the treatment of radio/chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting are well recognized in different clinical situations, suggesting that no single mechanism is likely to be responsible for their production. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a negative impact on quality of life and this may lead to a refusal of curative therapy or to a decline in palliative benefits offered by cytotoxic treatment. Palonosetron is a new agent in the class of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs), and differs from the other agents by its higher receptor-binding affinity and longer half-life. These pharmacological properties have resulted in improved antiemetic activity in clinical trials, particularly in the treatment of delayed CINV following moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

AREA COVERED

A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library and meeting materials from ASCO and MASCC were all searched.

EXPERT OPINION

Palonosetron was the only serotonin receptor antagonist approved for prevention of delayed CINV caused by MEC and its use was incorporated in guideline recommendations. To date, several treatment settings such as multiple day chemotherapy require further studies to improve emesis related to therapy.