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

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

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

Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are among the most frequently experienced toxic side-effects associated with chemotherapy. Although nausea and vomiting can result from surgery or radiotherapy, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is potentially the most severe and most distressing. Estimates regarding the incidence of CINV vary depending on the treatment administered and individual patient characteristics.The impact of CINV on quality of life (QoL) and daily activities is considerable. Pharmacological treatments are considered routine for CINV. Clinical guidelines now recommend that patients receiving moderate emetic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens be preferentially treated with palonosetron, the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, in combination with dexamethasone. In addition, it has shown that single-dose fosaprepitant is equivalent to the standard 3-day aprepitant regimen (the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist). Despite these advances in antiemetic management, approximately 50% of patients receiving chemotherapy still experience nausea and/or vomiting. Further improvements are still desirable, particularly in the prevention and treatment of delayed CINV. Non-pharmacological interventions can be possible adjuncts to standard anti-emetic therapy. Using new technologies to collect patient-reported outcomes may improve the accuracy of assessment, provide a better picture of the patient's experience of these symptoms, and provide a means to simultaneously monitor symptoms, educate patients, and collect longitudinal data.

Anesthetic premedication: new horizons of an old practice

The practice of anesthetic premedication embarked upon soon after ether and chloroform were introduced as general anesthetics in the middle of the 19(th) century. By applying opioids and anticholinergics before surgery, the surgical patients could achieve a less anxious state, and more importantly, they would acquire a smoother course during the tedious and dangerous induction stage. Premedication with opioids and anticholinergics was not a routine practice in the 20(th) century when intravenous anesthetics were primarily used as induction agents that significantly shorten the induction time. The current practice of anesthetic premedication has evolved into a generalized scheme that incorporates several aspects of patient care: decreasing preoperative anxiety, dampening intraoperative noxious stimulus and its associated neuroendocrinological changes, and minimizing postoperative adverse effects of anesthesia and surgery. Rational use of premedication in modern anesthesia practice should be justified by individual needs, the types of surgery, and the anesthetic agents and techniques used. In this article, we will provide our readers with updated information about premedication of surgical patients with a focus on the recent application of second generation serotonin type 3 antagonist, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants.

Randomized pharmacokinetic study comparing subcutaneous and intravenous palonosetron in cancer patients treated with platinum based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron is a potent second generation 5- hydroxytryptamine-3 selective antagonist which can be administered by either intravenous (IV) or oral routes, but subcutaneous (SC) administration of palonosetron has never been studied, even though it could have useful clinical applications. In this study, we evaluate the bioavailability of SC palonosetron.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive SC or IV palonosetron, followed by the alternative route in a crossover manner, during the first two cycles of chemotherapy. Blood samples were collected at baseline and 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 minutes and 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 h after palonosetron administration. Urine was collected during 12 hours following palonosetron. We compared pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC0-24h, t1/2, and Cmax observed with each route of administration by analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

From October 2009 to July 2010, 25 evaluable patients were included. AUC0-24h for IV and SC palonosetron were respectively 14.1 and 12.7 ng × h/ml (p=0.160). Bioavalability of SC palonosetron was 118% (95% IC: 69-168). Cmax was lower with SC than with IV route and was reached 15 minutes following SC administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron bioavailability was similar when administered by either SC or IV route. This new route of administration might be specially useful for outpatient management of emesis and for administration of oral chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01046240.

Pilot study on the efficacy of an ondansetron- versus palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen prior to highly emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Nausea and vomiting are among the most feared complications of chemotherapy reported by patients. The objective of this study was to establish the overall complete response (CR; no emesis or use of rescue medication 0-120 h after chemotherapy) with either ondansetron- or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, single-center, pilot study that enrolled patients receiving their first cycle of HEC. Patients were randomized to receive either palonosetron 0.25 mg IV (PAD) or ondansetron 24 mg orally (OAD) on day 1 prior to HEC. All patients received oral aprepitant 125 mg on day 1, then 80 mg on days 2 and 3, and oral dexamethasone 12 mg on day 1, then 8 mg on days 2, 3, and 4. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients were enrolled, 20 in each arm. All patients were female, and 39 received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer. For the primary endpoint, 65 % (95 % CI, 40.8-84.6 %) of patients in the PAD arm and 40 % (95 % CI, 19.1-63.9 %) of patients in the OAD arm achieved an overall CR.

CONCLUSIONS

While CR rates for aprepitant and dexamethasone plus palonosetron or ondansetron-containing regimens have been published previously, this is the first documentation of CR rates with these regimens in the same patient population. These results may be used to design a larger, adequately powered, prospective study comparing these regimens.

Palonosetron versus other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer on chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient setting

BACKGROUND

Despite favorable evidence from clinical trials for single-dose palonosetron versus other commercially available 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), clinical comparative data are scarce from hospital outpatient settings, where these antiemetic agents are used in patients diagnosed with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy (CTH).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our retrospective study was to assess the hospital claims to evaluate the rate of uncontrolled CINV with antiemetic prophylaxis using palonosetron versus other 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists in patients diagnosed with cancer who are receiving CTH (highly emetogenic CTH, moderately emetogenic CTH, low-emetogenic CTH, or minimally emetogenic CTH) treatment in a hospital outpatient setting.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years who had cancer and were being treated with CTH and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) and other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (Group 2) for the first time between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2009, were identified using a hospital-service database. Within each CTH cycle, CINV events were identified through International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion (from Day 1 of each CTH administration until the end of the CTH cycle) or for use of rescue medications (Day 2 until the end of the CTH cycle). A multivariate regression model was developed to predict uncontrolled CINV event rates per CTH cycle between Groups 1 and 2 matched on CTH emetogenicity distribution in the study follow-up period (first of 8 cycles or 6 months). A subgroup analysis of patients on CTH with the highest risk of nausea and vomiting (highly emetogenic CTH or moderately emetogenic CTH) was also conducted.

RESULTS

Of 9144 identified patients, 1775 were prescribed palonosetron (Group 1). Group 1 patients were statistically younger (61.2 vs 62.8 years; P < 0.001), composed of more females (57.1% vs 51.9%; P < 0.001) and more whites (72.8% vs 71.4%; all races P < 0.001), received more highly emetogenic CTH treatments (43.3% vs 28.5%; all CTH P < 0.001), and had more lung (26.1% vs 22.4%) and breast cancer patients (19.3% vs 15.3%; all cancer P < 0.001). The regression model predicted a 13.7% decrease in CINV event rate per CTH cycle for Group 1 versus Group 2. For Subgroup 1, the model predicted a 12.5% decrease in the CINV event rate per cycle in Group 1 patients versus those in Group 2.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, patients with cancer who were treated with CTH and on antiemetic prophylaxis using palonosetron were found to have significantly lower CINV event rates than those receiving other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists.

Impact of initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus ondansetron on risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer receiving multi-day chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to examine the risk of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting (CINV) among lung cancer patients receiving multi-day chemotherapy and ondansetron- or palonosetron-initiated prophylactic antiemetic regimens in a community oncology setting.

METHODS

The Georgia Cancer Specialists electronic medical records database was used to retrospectively identify lung cancer patients who received multi-day cisplatin or carboplatin regimens with ondansetron or palonosetron on day 1 between April 1, 2006 and July 31, 2009. Uncontrolled CINV events were identified through ICD-9-CM codes (nausea/vomiting), CPT codes (dehydration), rescue medications, nausea/vomiting hospitalizations, and/or antiemetic therapy after last chemotherapy administration of the cycle. Risk for uncontrolled CINV, up to 7 days after last chemotherapy administration, was analyzed at cycle level using logistic regression with regressors of gender, age, number of chemotherapy administration days, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer type, multicancer diagnoses, and chemotherapy regimen.

RESULTS

A total of 209 palonosetron and 153 ondansetron patients (702 and 515 cycles, respectively) met the inclusion criteria. Palonosetron patients were significantly older (mean 67.9 versus 63.9 years; P < 0.0001), with no significant difference in gender, baseline comorbidity score, or multicancer diagnosis. Palonosetron cycles had 63% lower risk for uncontrolled CINV events versus ondansetron cycles [odds ratio (OR) 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.54; P < 0.0001]. Sub-analysis by chemotherapy supported overall analysis (cisplatin OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.04-0.25; P < 0.0001; carboplatin OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.30-0.70; P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective analysis of lung cancer patients, multi-day chemotherapy cycles administered with palonosetron on day 1 were associated with a significantly lower risk for uncontrolled CINV events versus ondansetron-initiated chemotherapy cycles.

Palonosetron versus other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with hematologic malignancies treated with emetogenic chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient setting in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the rate of uncontrolled chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after initiating antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists (RAs) in patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies (lymphoma and leukemia) and receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) in a hospital outpatient setting.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 18 years and diagnosed with hematologic malignancies initiating HEC or MEC and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) and other 5-HT₃ RAs (Group 2) for the first time in a hospital outpatient setting between 4/1/2007 and 3/31/2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective Database. Within each cycle, CINV events were identified (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) through ICD-9 codes for nausea, vomiting, and/or volume depletion (from each CT administration day 1 until the end of the CT cycle), or use of rescue medications (day 2 until the end of the CT cycle). Negative binomial distribution generalized linear multivariate regression model estimating the CINV event rate on CT, specific CT cycles, and cancer diagnosis (leukemia/lymphoma)-matched groups in the follow-up period (first of 8 cycles or 6 months) was developed.

RESULTS

Of 971 identified patients, 211 initiated palonosetron (Group 1). Group 1 patients comprised of more females [50.2 vs. 41.4%; p = 0.0226], Whites [74.4 vs. 70.4%, and Hispanics [7.6 vs. 6.3%; all races p = 0.0105], received more HEC treatments [89.6 vs. 84.2%; all CT types p = 0.0129], and had more lymphoma diagnosed patients [89.6 vs. 76.3%; all cancer types p = 0.0033] at baseline. After controlling for differences in several demographic and clinical variables, the regression model predicted a 20.4% decrease in CINV event rate per CT cycle for Group 1 versus Group 2 patients. Study limitations include potential lack of generalizability, absence of data on certain confounders including alcohol consumption and prior history of motion sickness, potential underestimation of incidence of uncontrolled CINV, and inability to draw conclusions pertaining to cause and effect relationship.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective hospital study, patients with hematologic malignancies treated with HEC or MEC and initiated on antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron in the hospital outpatient setting were more likely to experience significantly lower CINV event rates (in the hospital outpatient, inpatient, and emergency room settings) versus patients initiated on other 5-HT₃ RAs.