Palonosetron

Dexamethasone-based Prophylactic Therapy for Prevention of Post-Embolization Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Assessing its Efficacy and Influence of Dosage and Timing in Patients Undergoing Arterial Embolization

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Post-embolization syndrome (PES), characterized by pain, fever, nausea, and vomiting, is a common but non-serious adverse event following arterial embolization, negatively impacting patient satisfaction with the procedure. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone-based prophylactic therapy in preventing PES, as well as to assess the effects of its dosage and timing of administration.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across three databases, two trial registries, and citation searches to identify relevant studies. Data related to postoperative pain, fever, nausea, and vomiting were extracted and meta-analyzed using a random-effects model and the Mantel-Haenszel method. Meta-regression was performed to examine the role of dexamethasone dose and timing of administration as mediators.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone-based prophylactic therapy significantly reduced the risk of postoperative pain (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.48-0.69; P<0.00001), fever (RR=0.36, 95% CI: 0.22-0.61; P<0.00001), nausea (RR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.67; P<0.00001), and vomiting (RR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.36-0.82; P=0.004) compared to placebo or no treatment. A higher dose of dexamethasone was associated with a significantly lower incidence of postoperative pain (P=0.038). Regarding timing, postoperative and continuous (extending throughout the perioperative period) administration, was more effective than preoperative administration (P=0.024; P=0.007). A dosage of 6-12 mg was particularly effective in reducing the risk for all four symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone effectively prevents PES in patients undergoing arterial embolization. An optimal protocol may involve a divided dose regimen within the range of 6-12 mg, extending throughout the recovery period for maximum benefit.

Comparison of the ED50 of prophylactic butorphanol in preventing morphine-induced pruritus with or without palonosetron: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized dose-response trial using an up-down sequential allocation method

BACKGROUND

Butorphanol has been used to reduce the incidence and severity of neuraxial morphine-induced pruritus. Palonosetron is a commonly used antiemetic for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The aim of our study was to compare the effective dose in 50% of subjects (ED50) of intravenous butorphanol infusion with or without a single intravenous bolus of palonosetron for preventing pruritus induced by epidural administration of morphine.

METHODS

A total of 120 parturients were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous bolus injection of palonosetron plus continuous infusion of butorphanol (Group P + B) or an intravenous bolus of saline plus continuous infusion of butorphanol (Group B) after epidural administration of morphine. The antipruritic effect was graded as satisfactory (numerical rating scale (NRS) of pruritus ≤3) or unsatisfactory (NRS >3) within 48 h after morphine treatment. The first patient in each group received butorphanol infusion at a rate of 4 µg/kg/h. The infusion dose for each subsequent patient in the corresponding group was increased by 0.2 µg/kg/h after an unsatisfactory response or decreased by 0.2 µg/kg/h after a satisfactory response. The ED50 was calculated for each group and compared using up-down sequential analysis.

RESULTS

The ED50 (mean [95% confidence interval (CI)]) of the dose of intravenous butorphanol infusion for preventing moderate to severe pruritus was lower in Group P + B (3.29 µg/kg/min [3.25-3.34 µg/kg/min]) than in Group B (3.57 µg/kg/min [3.47-3.67 µg/kg/min]) (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Under the conditions of the present study, a prophylactic use of 0.25 mg palonosetron reduced the ED50 of prophylactic infusion of butorphanol by approximately 8% to achieve a satisfactory antipruritic effect after epidural morphine for post-caesarean analgesia.

Palonosetron for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common adverse events in patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), has demonstrated non-inferiority to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs for CINV in pediatric patients. Although palonosetron has a long half-life and prolonged antiemetic action, its efficacy against delayed CINV in pediatric patients is not well understood. Therefore, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron for delayed CINV in pediatric patients.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was performed. A meta-analysis was performed using forest plots, and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A funnel plot was constructed to explore publication bias.

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved 842 records, of which 23 full-text articles were assessed, including six RCTs. Meta-analysis of four RCTs that reported on the complete response (CR: defined as no emesis and no rescue medication) rate for delayed CINV revealed that palonosetron was statistically superior to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs (RR = 1.21 [95% CI 1.09-1.35]; p < 0.01). Although the number of studies included was small, no publication bias was observed in the funnel plots. In addition, the CR rate for overall and acute CINV was also significantly higher for palonosetron (RR = 1.25 [95% CI 1.01-1.54]; p = 0.04 and RR = 1.06 [95% CI 1.01-1.12]; p = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron is effective in the prophylaxis of delayed CINV in pediatric patients.

A synthetic route to artificial chiral α-amino acids featuring a 3,4-dihydroisoquinolone core through a Rh(III)-catalyzed functionalization of allyl groups in chiral Ni(II) complexes

Currently, non-proteinogenic α-amino acids (α-AAs) have attracted increasing interest in bio- and medicinal chemistry. In this context, the first protocol for the asymmetric synthesis of artificial α-AAs featuring a 3,4-dihydroisoquinolone core with two stereogenic centers was successfully elaborated. A straightforward Rh(III)-catalysed C-H activation/annulation reaction of various aryl hydroxamates with a set of robust and readily available chiral Ni(II) complexes, which have allylic appendages derived from glycine (Gly), alanine (Ala) and phenylalanine (Phe), allowed incorporation of a 3,4-dihydroisoquinolone scaffold into the chiral amino acid residue. The reaction was performed in methanol and under mild conditions (at room temperature under air atmosphere), providing separable diastereomeric complexes with up to 94% total yield. The target α-AA with a 3,4-dihydroisoquinolone core in an enantiopure form was subsequently released from the obtained chiral Ni(II) complexes via an acidic decomposition in aqueous HCl, along with the recovery of the chiral auxiliary ligand.

Chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: Pathogenesis and current management

Chemotherapy is the most common treatment for malignant tumors. However, chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity (CIGT) has been a major concern for cancer patients, which reduces their quality of life and leads to treatment intolerance and even cessation. Nevertheless, prevention and treatment for CIGT are challenging, due to the prevalence and complexity of the condition. Chemotherapeutic drugs directly damage gastrointestinal mucosa to induce CIGT, including nausea, vomiting, anorexia, gastrointestinal mucositis, and diarrhea, etc. The pathogenesis of CIGT involves multiple factors, such as gut microbiota disorders, inflammatory responses and abnormal neurotransmitter levels, that synergistically contribute to its occurrence and development. In particular, the dysbiosis of gut microbiota is usually linked to abnormal immune responses that increases inflammatory cytokines' expression, which is a common characteristic of many types of CIGT. Chemotherapy-induced intestinal neurotoxicity is also a vital concern in CIGT. Currently, modern medicine is the dominant treatment of CIGT, however, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has attracted interest as a complementary and alternative therapy that can greatly alleviate CIGT. Accordingly, this review aimed to comprehensively summarize the pathogenesis and current management of CIGT using PubMed and Google Scholar databases, and proposed that future research for CIGT should focus on the gut microbiota, intestinal neurotoxicity, and promising TCM therapies, which may help to develop more effective interventions and optimize managements of CIGT.

Mast cells link immune sensing to antigen-avoidance behaviour

The physiological functions of mast cells remain largely an enigma. In the context of barrier damage, mast cells are integrated in type 2 immunity and, together with immunoglobulin E (IgE), promote allergic diseases. Allergic symptoms may, however, facilitate expulsion of allergens, toxins and parasites and trigger future antigen avoidance1-3. Here, we show that antigen-specific avoidance behaviour in inbred mice4,5 is critically dependent on mast cells; hence, we identify the immunological sensor cell linking antigen recognition to avoidance behaviour. Avoidance prevented antigen-driven adaptive, innate and mucosal immune activation and inflammation in the stomach and small intestine. Avoidance was IgE dependent, promoted by Th2 cytokines in the immunization phase and by IgE in the execution phase. Mucosal mast cells lining the stomach and small intestine rapidly sensed antigen ingestion. We interrogated potential signalling routes between mast cells and the brain using mutant mice, pharmacological inhibition, neural activity recordings and vagotomy. Inhibition of leukotriene synthesis impaired avoidance, but overall no single pathway interruption completely abrogated avoidance, indicating complex regulation. Collectively, the stage for antigen avoidance is set when adaptive immunity equips mast cells with IgE as a telltale of past immune responses. On subsequent antigen ingestion, mast cells signal termination of antigen intake. Prevention of immunopathology-causing, continuous and futile responses against per se innocuous antigens or of repeated ingestion of toxins through mast-cell-mediated antigen-avoidance behaviour may be an important arm of immunity.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Palonosetron and Ramosetron in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron with that of ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A total of 17 randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV were included. The primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV, which were measured in early, late, and overall phases. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of the administration time of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and divided into two phases: early phase and the end of surgery. A total of 17 studies with 1823 patients were included in the final analysis. The incidence of retching (relative risk [RR] = 0.525; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.390 to 0.707) and late POV (RR = 0.604; 95% CI = 0.404 to 0.903) was significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ramosetron group. No significant differences were demonstrated in the incidence of PON, PONV, complete response, use of antiemetics, and adverse effects. Subgroup analysis showed that palonosetron was superior to ramosetron in terms of early PON, late PON, overall POV, and use of rescue antiemetics when they were administered early; in terms of retching, regardless of the timing of administration. Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in terms of early PON when they were administered late. The prophylactic administration of palonosetron was more effective than that of ramosetron in preventing the development of retching and late POV. In this meta-analysis, no significant differences in PONV prevention between the two drugs were demonstrated. Further studies are required to validate the outcomes of our study.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative vomiting (POV), post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV), and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) continue to be causes of pediatric morbidity, delay in discharge, and unplanned hospital admission. Research on the pathophysiology, risk assessment, and therapy for PDNV, OINV and pain therapy options in children has received increased attention. Multimodal pain management with the use of perioperative regional and opioid-sparing analgesia has helped decrease nausea and vomiting. Two common emetogenic surgical procedures in children are adenotonsillectomy and strabismus repair. Although PONV risk factors differ between adults and children, the approach to decrease baseline risk is similar. As PONV and POV are frequent in children, antiemetic prophylaxis should be considered for those at risk. A multimodal approach for antiemetic and pain therapy involves preoperative risk evaluation and stratification, antiemetic prophylaxis, and pain management with opioid-sparing medications and regional anesthesia. Useful antiemetics include dexamethasone and serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists such as ondansetron. Multimodal combination prophylactic therapy using two or three antiemetics from different drug classes and propofol total intravenous anesthesia should be considered for children at high PONV risk. "Enhanced recovery after surgery" protocols include a multimodal approach with preoperative preparation, adequate intravenous fluid hydration, opioid-sparing analgesia, and prophylactic antiemetics. PONV guidelines and management algorithms help provide effective postoperative care for pediatric patients.

Comparison of palonosetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in women using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia

Background

We compared the effects of palonosetron with ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during the first 24 h after surgery in women receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) with fentanyl for pain control.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, 204 healthy patients who were undergoing elective surgery with general anesthesia were enrolled. In the palonosetron group (n = 102), 0.075 mg bolus was given intravenously (i.v.) 30 min before the end of surgery and 8 ml saline was added to the IV-PCA. In the ondansetron group (n = 102), 8 mg bolus i.v. was given 30 min before the end of surgery and 16 mg of ondansetron was added to the IV-PCA. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, and use of rescue anti-emetics were evaluated 6 and 24 h after the operation.

Results

The incidences of nausea (55.6%) and vomiting (14.1%) in the palonosetron group did not differ from those (58.3 and 19.8%) in the ondansetron group during the first 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the severity of nausea and use of rescue anti-emetics between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The effects of palonosetron in preventing PONV were not different from those of ondansetron during the first 24 h postoperatively in women receiving IV-PCA with fentanyl.

Comparison of Palonosetron, Dexamethasone, and Palonosetron Plus Dexamethasone as Prophylactic Antiemetic and Antipruritic Drug in Patients Receiving Intrathecal Morphine for Lower Segment Cesarean Section

Background:

Intrathecal morphine is commonly used for postcesarean analgesia. Its use is frequently associated with opioid-induced nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. Palonosetron (0.075 mg) combined with dexamethasone (8 mg) is postulated to have an additive effect over each drug alone. The study, therefore, compared the effect of intravenous (i.v.) palonosetron, dexamethasone, and palonosetron with dexamethasone combination in preventing intrathecal morphine-induced postoperative vomiting and pruritus in lower segment cesarean section (LSCS) patients.

Settings and Design:

Randomized, prospective, double-blinded, observational clinical study.

Methods:

Ninety pregnant women, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I undergoing LSCS were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to three groups – Group P received 0.075 mg palonosetron i.v., Group D received dexamethasone 8 mg i.v., and Group PD received palonosetron 0.075 mg along with dexamethasone 4 mg i.v., just after spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine 2.2 ml (12 mg) and 150 μg morphine. The incidence of pruritus, nausea, vomiting, and need for rescue drug were recorded for 24 h.

Statistical Analysis:

Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test for categorical variables and Chi-square test for noncategorical variables.

Results:

The incidence of nausea, vomiting was significantly more in Group D (40%) than Group P (27%) and Group PD (20%) in 24 h. The incidence of pruritus was significantly more in Group D (6%) than Group P and PD (3%). The need of rescue antiemetic was more in Group D (30%) than Group P (6%) and Group PD (3%). No difference in three groups requiring rescue antipruritic drug.

Conclusion:

Prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced vomiting and pruritus was more effective with palonosetron alone or with dexamethasone combination than dexamethasone alone. Combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone proved no better than palonosetron alone.

Profile of Antiemetic Activity of Netupitant Alone or in Combination with Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in Ferrets and Suncus murinus (House Musk Shrew)

Background and Aims: Chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis involves the activation of multiple pathways, with 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT; serotonin) playing a major role in the initial response. Substance P tachykinin NK₁ receptor antagonists can reduce emesis induced by disparate emetic challenges and therefore have a clinical utility as broad inhibitory anti-emetic drugs. In the present studies, we investigate the broad inhibitory anti-emetic profile of a relatively new NK₁ receptor antagonist, netupitant, alone or in combination with the long acting 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, palonosetron, for a potential to reduce emesis in ferrets and shrews.

Materials and Methods: Ferrets were pretreated with netupitant and/or palonosetron, and then administered apomorphine (0.125 mg/kg, s.c.), morphine (0.5 mg/kg, s.c.), ipecacuanha (1.2 mg/kg, p.o.), copper sulfate (100 mg/kg, intragastric), or cisplatin (5–10 mg/kg, i.p.); in other studies netupitant was administered to Suncus murinus before motion (4 cm horizontal displacement, 2 Hz for 10 min).

Results: Netupitant (3 mg/kg, p.o.) abolished apomorphine-, morphine-, ipecacuanha- and copper sulfate-induced emesis. Lower doses of netupitant (0.03–0.3 mg/kg, p.o.) dose-dependently reduced cisplatin (10 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced emesis in an acute (8 h) model, and motion-induced emesis in S. murinus. In a ferret cisplatin (5 mg/kg, i.p.)-induced acute and delayed emesis model, netupitant administered once at 3 mg/kg, p.o., abolished the first 24 h response and reduced the 24–72 h response by 94.6%; the reduction was markedly superior to the effect of a three times per day administration of ondansetron (1 mg/kg, i.p.). A single administration of netupitant (1 mg/kg, p.o.) plus palonosetron (0.1 mg/kg, p.o.) combined with dexamethasone (1 mg/kg, i.p., once per day), also significantly antagonized cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis and was comparable with a once-daily regimen of ondansetron (1 mg/kg, p.o.) plus aprepitant (1 mg/kg, p.o.) in combination with dexamethasone (1 mg/kg, i.p.).

Conclusion: In conclusion, netupitant has potent and long lasting anti-emetic activity against a number of emetic challenges indicating broad inhibitory properties. The convenience of protection afforded by the single dosing of netupitant together with palonosetron was demonstrated and also is known to provide an advantage over other therapeutic strategies to control emesis in man.

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.

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.

The Efficacy of Palonosetron Plus Dexamethasone in Preventing Chemoradiotherapy-induced Nausea and Emesis in Patients Receiving Daily Low-dose Cisplatin-based Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Uterine Cervical Cancer: A Phase II Study

OBJECTIVES

The prevention of chemotherapy-induced and radiotherapy-induced emesis is recommended by several guidelines; however, there are no evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics in concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron and dexamethasone during CCRT.

METHODS

This is a nonrandomized, prospective, single-center, open phase II study.Twenty-six consecutive patients with cervical carcinoma were treated with daily low-dose cisplatin (8 mg/m/d)-based CCRT (2 Gy/d, 25 fractions, 5 times a week). All patients received 0.75 mg of palonosetron on day 1 of each week and 4 mg of oral dexamethasone daily. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a complete response, which was defined as no emetic episodes and no antiemetic rescue medication during treatment.

RESULTS

Planned daily low-dose cisplatin-based CCRT was successful without delay or interruption in 46% (12/26) of the patients. The mean dose of total cisplatin was 184 (range, 136 to 200) mg/m.No patient vomited during the treatment period. The complete response rate during CCRT was 100%. A total of 81% patients were completely free from nausea. All patients tolerated the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone and completed the scheduled regimen. Five patients exhibited grade 1 Cushingoid features that resolved after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron and dexamethasone provided complete protection from nausea and vomiting in patients with cervical cancer receiving daily low-dose cisplatin-based CCRT.

Synergistic effect of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 and neurokinin 1 receptor antagonism in rodent models of somatic and visceral pain

Synergistic activity has been observed between serotonergic 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) and tachykinergic neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor-mediated responses. This study investigated the efficacy of a 5-HT3 antagonist, palonosetron, and a NK1 antagonist, netupitant, alone or in combination in rodent models of somatic and visceral colonic hypersensitivity. In a rat model of experimental neuropathic pain, somatic hypersensitivity was quantified by the number of ipsilateral paw withdrawals to a von Frey filament (6g). Electrophysiologic responses were recorded in the dorsal horn neurons after mechanical or thermal stimuli. Acute colonic hypersensitivity was induced experimentally in rats by infusing dilute acetic acid (0.6%) directly into the colon. Colonic sensitivity was assessed by a visceromotor behavioral response quantified as the number of abdominal contractions in response to graded isobaric pressures (0-60 mm Hg) of colorectal distension. Palonosetron or netupitant was administered alone or in combination via oral gavage. When dosed alone, both significantly reduced somatic sensitivity, decreased the evoked response of spinal dorsal horn neurons to mechanical or thermal stimulation, and caused significant (P < 0.05) inhibition of colonic hypersensitivity in a dose-dependent manner. The combined administration of palonosetron and netupitant at doses that were ineffective alone significantly reduced both somatic and visceral sensitivity and decreased the evoked response of spinal dorsal horn neurons to mechanical or thermal stimulation. In summary, the combination of palonosetron with a NK1 receptor antagonist showed synergistic analgesic activity in rodent models of somatic and visceral hypersensitivity, and may prove to be a useful therapeutic approach to treat pain associated with irritable bowel syndrome.

Does pharmacogenomics account for variability in control of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists?

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is one of the most concerning adverse drug effects from cytotoxic chemotherapy. Despite appropriate use of antiemetic guidelines, 20-30 % of patients experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting secondary to chemotherapy. To assess the variability of 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist efficacy caused by genetic variation, a review of the available literature was conducted. From the literature, three sources of pharmacogenomic variability were identified: polymorphisms associated with 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor subunits, drug metabolism via cytochromes P450, and drug transport in the body. Testing for receptor subunit polymorphisms is not applicable to a clinical setting at this time; however, cytochrome P450 2D6 testing is FDA-approved and widely accessible. Cytochrome P450 2D6 ultrarapid metabolizers and poor metabolizers displayed altered antiemetic efficacy when compared with intermediate metabolizers and extensive metabolizers. We postulate that testing for cytochrome P450 2D6 phenotypes may be the most accessible way to provide individualized antiemetic therapy in the future.

Evaluation of the relation between patient characteristics and the state of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with gynecologic cancer receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin

PURPOSE

An antiemetic regimen for patients taking paclitaxel and carboplatin (TC) includes dexamethasone (20 mg) to protect against hypersensitivity. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), however, is difficult to adequately control in patients receiving TC. In the present study, we retrospectively investigated risk factors for CINV in patients receiving TC with this antiemetic regimen based on a questionnaire.

METHODS

Eligible patients were diagnosed with gynecologic cancer and receiving paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) intravenously for 3 h and carboplatin (area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min) on day 1 every 3 weeks in our institution, and treated with granisetron (3 mg) and dexamethasone (20 mg) for antiemesis. Data of nausea and vomiting assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version4.0 were collected from the medical records. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire including items such as age and hyperemesis. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate univariate and independent multivariate associations with items on nausea of grade 2 or greater and vomiting of grade 1 or greater.

RESULTS

On univariate logistic analysis, no item was significantly associated with nausea of grade 2 or greater. Hypertension and hyperemesis gravidarum and adjuvant chemotherapy were significantly associated with delayed vomiting of grade 1 or greater. Multivariate analysis was performed with delayed vomiting of grade 1 or greater as an endpoint, and the resulting independent items were hypertension and hyperemesis gravidarum.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that the risk factor for delayed vomiting of grade 1 or higher was a history of hyperemesis gravidarum in patients receiving conventional TC with dexamethasone (20 mg) and granisetron. Therefore, in patients with this risk factor, criteria of major organizations should be followed first.

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.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron versus other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in patients with cancer treated with low emetogenic chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient setting in the United States

BACKGROUND

The incidence of overall (acute and delayed) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events among patients treated with single- and multi-day low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) is not well established. We studied a cohort of patients receiving LEC and antiemetic prophylaxis with palonosetron (Group 1) versus other 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (5-HT(3)-RAs) (Group 2), to determine the overall rate of CINV and the proportion of patients experiencing delayed CINV (days 2-7 of a CT cycle) in a hospital outpatient setting.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years with cancer diagnosis initiating single-day and multi-day LEC for the first time between 4/1/2007 and 3/31/2009 were identified from the Premier Perspective database. CINV events (ICD-9-CM codes for nausea, vomiting, or volume depletion or CINV-related rescue medications) were assessed descriptively. A generalized linear multivariate regression model was developed, estimating the overall CINV event rate among Group 1 and 2 patients in the follow-up period (first of eight chemotherapy [CT] cycles or 6 months).

RESULTS

In the follow-up period, out of a total of 10,137 overall CINV events (single-day and multi-day LEC), 8783 events (86.6%) were identified in single-day LEC treated patients. Within single-day LEC treated events, in the first cycle, of 3184 events, 2996 (94.1%) events were delayed. Average number of delayed events per patient remained consistent throughout the eight cycles (3.1 [1st cycle] vs. 2.9 [8th cycle]; P = 0.842]). Among 2439 patients on antiemetic prophylaxis with a 5-HT(3)-RA, 10.1% (n = 247) initiated palonosetron. Regression analysis indicated that Group 1 patients (versus Group 2) had a 15.2% reduction in CINV event rate per CT cycle; P = 0.0403. 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 analysis, delayed CINV comprised a major proportion of overall CINV among cancer diagnosed patients on single-day LEC. Additionally, palonosetron prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower overall CINV event rate versus other 5-HT(3)-RA prophylaxis in single- and multi-day LEC treatment.

Determination of palonosetron in human urine by LC-MS/MS

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron is used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, quantification of this drug in human urine has been rare.

RESULTS

A one-step dilution method for the analysis of palonosetron in human urine using LC coupled to positive MS/MS has been developed and validated according to US FDA guidelines. The method uses 200 µl of urine and covers a working range from 2.5-1000 ng/ml with a LLOQ of 2.5 ng/ml.

CONCLUSION

This new LC-MS/MS assay is sensitive and specific despite using an external standard method. It is suitable for clinical studies of palonosetron.

Comparative clinical effectiveness of various 5-HT3 RA antiemetic regimens on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with hospital and emergency department visits in real world practice

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) events for various 5-HT(3) RAs in patients who received moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) by evaluating hospital or emergency department (ED) admissions.

METHODS

PharMetrics claims database was used to identify patients diagnosed with breast cancer (BC) who were initiated on cyclophosphamide-based adjuvant chemotherapy or with lung cancer (LC) initiated on carboplatin-based or cisplatin-based chemotherapy between 2005 and 2008. Patients were stratified in two groups: those initiated and maintained on palonosetron versus those treated with any other 5-HT(3) RA regimens in the 6-month post first chemotherapy. Risk for CINV events, identified by ICD-9-CM for nausea, vomiting, and/or dehydration, were estimated using logistic regressions, controlling for age, gender, comorbidity, and total chemotherapy doses or days.

RESULTS

Of the 4,868 cyclophosphamide-treated BC, 5,414 carboplatin-treated LC, and 1,692 cisplatin-treated LC identified, there were 1,864 BC (38.5%), 1,806 carboplatin-treated LC (33.4%), and 390 cisplatin-treated LC (23.0%) in the palonosetron-only group. Palonosetron-only group had significantly lower probability of CINV events associated with ED/hospital admissions in all three cohorts (3.5% vs. 6.3% in BC, 9.5% vs. 13.8% in carboplatin-treated LC, and 16.4% vs. 22.6% in cisplatin-treated LC, all at p < 0.05). Logistic regressions found palonosetron-only group had significantly lower risk of CINV events (odds ratios = 0.550, 0.653, and 0.689 in BC, carboplatin-treated LC and cisplatin-treated LC, respectively, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with lung or breast cancer receiving MEC or HEC had significantly lower risk of CINV events associated with hospital/ED admissions if initiated and maintained on palonosetron relative to patients receiving 5-HT(3) RA regimens.

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.

Single-dose palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy containing steroids: results of a phase II study from the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio dei Linfomi (GISL)

Purpose

The control of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy is paramount for overall treatment success in cancer patients. Antiemetic therapy during chemotherapy in lymphoma patients generally consists of anti-serotoninergic drugs and dexamethasone. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron, a second-generation serotonin type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist, in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) containing steroids.

Methods

Patients received a single intravenous bolus of palonosetron (0.25 mg) before administration of chemotherapy. Complete response (CR) defined as no vomiting and no rescue therapy during overall phase (0–120 h) was the primary endpoint. Complete control (CC) defined as CR and only mild nausea was a secondary endpoint.

Results

Eighty-six evaluable patients entered in the study. A CR was observed in 74 patients (86.0%) during the overall phase; the CR during the acute (0–24 h) and delayed (24–120 h) phases was 90.7% and 88.4%, respectively. CC was 89.5% during the acute and 84.9% during the delayed phase; the overall CC was 82.6%.

Conclusions

This was the first trial, which demonstrated the efficacy of a single dose of palonosetron in control CINV in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma receiving MEC regimen containing steroids.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

CONTEXT

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant problem in the treatment of children with cancer. The last decade has seen a variety of newer antiemetics being evaluated for CINV; their efficacy and side effects need to be assessed in children. This article attempts to highlight this revised management of CINV.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Online search; journals. Search period: 6 months.

RESULTS

Newer drugs (aprepitant, fosapritant and newer 5HT3 antagonists) have been found to be effective in CINV: both acute and delayed phases. Most of the available literature is, however, based on adult oncology patients, with a few trials on adolescent patients.

CONCLUSION

Every child receiving treatment for cancer should be evaluated for possible CINV. Their treatment should take into account the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic drugs. Newer antiemetic drugs have good efficacy and can be tried in pediatric patients, especially in children > 11 years of age.

Palonosetron in combination with 1-day versus 3-day dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial

PURPOSE

A phase III trial assessed the efficacy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone given once in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following a broad range of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial evaluated two different treatment groups. One group received palonosetron (0.25 mg intravenously) and dexamethasone (8 mg intravenously) before chemotherapy, while the other was administered the same regimen on day 1 followed by dexamethasone 8 mg orally on days 2 and 3. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5 after chemotherapy initiation). The non-inferiority margin was predefined as a 15% difference between groups in the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Of 332 chemotherapy-naïve patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 65.1% were female, and 35.2% received anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-based regimens. Overall CR rates were 67.5% for those administered dexamethasone only on day 1 (n = 166), and 71.1% for those also administered dexamethasone on days 2 and 3 (n = 166; difference -3.6% (95% confidence interval, -13.5 to 6.3)). CR rates were not significantly different between groups during the acute (0-24 h post-chemotherapy; 88.6% versus 84.3%; P = 0.262) and delayed phases (days 2-5; 68.7% versus 77.7%; P = 0.116).

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron plus single-dose dexamethasone administered before common MEC regimens provide protection against acute and delayed CINV which is non-inferior to that of palonosetron plus dexamethasone for 3 days. However, the major benefit of the single-day regimen occurs in patients receiving non-AC MEC regimens.

Aprepitant: a review of its use in the prevention of nausea and vomiting

Aprepitant (Emend) is a neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist that is able to alleviate the emetic effects of substance P. When combined with a standard regimen of a corticosteroid (dexamethasone) and a serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist (ondansetron), oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 then 80 mg once daily on days 2 and 3) was effective in the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with single or multiple cycles of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). This aprepitant regimen was also effective in the prevention of CINV in patients treated with single or multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). A single oral dose of aprepitant 40 mg administered prior to patients undergoing abdominal surgery was also effective in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Aprepitant was generally well tolerated. Aprepitant is a recommended option for the treatment of PONV, and when combined with a corticosteroid and 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist is a recommended regimen for the treatment of CINV.

A phase II study of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

This is a randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of palonosetron, in combination with dexamethasone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We randomized 233 patients to receive palonosetron as a single i.v. bolus dose of 0.075, 0.25, or 0.75 mg before administration of HEC. Dexamethasone (12-16 mg i.v. on day 1, 8 mg i.v. on day 2, and 4-8 mg i.v. on day 3) was administered for prophylactic antiemesis. Pharmacokinetics of palonosetron was analyzed in 24 patients.

RESULTS

In this study, all patients were given > or =50 mg/m(2) cisplatin, which was considered to be HEC. No significant differences in complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) rates were found in the first 24 h between the 0.075-, 0.25-, and 0.75-mg groups (77.6%, 81.8%, and 79.5%, respectively). In the 120-h period of overall observation, CR rates increased in a dose-dependent manner. In the 0.75-mg group, we observed a significantly longer time to treatment failure than in the 0.075-mg group (median time >120 versus 82.0 h, P = 0.038). Palonosetron was tolerated well and did not show any dose-related increase in adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron at doses of 0.25 and 0.75 mg was shown to be effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with high CR rates of patients treated with HEC in Japan. All tested doses of palonosetron were tolerated well.

The efficacy and safety of palonosetron compared with granisetron in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced vomiting in the Chinese cancer patients: a phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel, comparative clinical trial

PURPOSE

This clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) among the Chinese cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred and forty patients were scheduled to be enrolled and randomized to receive a single intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg, or granisetron 3 mg, 30 min before receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the complete response (CR) rate for acute CIV (during the 0-24-h interval after chemotherapy). Secondary endpoints included the CR rates for delayed CIV (more than 24 h after chemotherapy).

RESULTS

Two hundred and eight patients were accrued and received study medication. CR rates for acute CIV were 82.69% for palonosetron and 72.12% for granisetron, which demonstrated that palonosetron was not inferior to granisetron in preventing acute CIV. Comparisons of CR rates for delayed CIV yielded no statistical difference between palonosetron and granisetron groups and did not reveal non-inferiority of palonosetron to granisetron. Adverse events were mostly mild to moderate, with quite low rates among the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose (0.25 mg) of palonosetron is not inferior to a single dose (3 mg) of granisetron in preventing CIV and possesses an acceptable safety profile in the Chinese population.

Rational prescription of drugs within similar therapeutic or structural class for gastrointestinal disease treatment: Drug metabolism and its related interactions

AIM: To review and summarize drug metabolism and its related interactions in prescribing drugs within the similar therapeutic or structural class for gastrointestinal disease treatment so as to promote rational use of medicines in clinical practice.

METHODS: Relevant literature was identified by performing MEDLINE/Pubmed searches covering the period from 1988 to 2006.

RESULTS: Seven classes of drugs were chosen, including gastric proton pump inhibitors, histamine H₂-receptor antagonists, benzamide-type gastroprokinetic agents, selective 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, fluoroquinolones, macrolide antibiotics and azole antifungals. They showed significant differences in metabolic profile (i.e., the fraction of drug metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP), CYP reaction phenotype, impact of CYP genotype on interindividual pharmacokinetics variability and CYP-mediated drug-drug interaction potential). Many events of severe adverse drug reactions and treatment failures were closely related to the ignorance of the above issues.

CONCLUSION: Clinicians should acquaint themselves with what kind of drug has less interpatient variability in clearance and whether to perform CYP genotyping prior to initiation of therapy. The relevant CYP knowledge helps clinicians to enhance the management of patients with gastrointestinal disease who may require treatment with polytherapeutic regimens.

Physical and chemical stability of palonosetron hydrochloride with five opiate agonists during simulated Y-site administration

PURPOSE

The physical and chemical compatibility of palonosetron hydrochloride with fentanyl citrate, hydromorphone hydrochloride, meperidine hydrochloride, morphine sulfate, and sufentanil citrate during simulated Y-site administration was studied.

METHODS

Test samples were prepared in triplicate by mixing 7.5-mL samples of undiluted palonosetron 50 microg/mL (of palonosetron) with 7.5-mL samples of fentanyl citrate 50 microg/mL, morphine sulfate 15 mg/mL, hydromorphone hydrochloride 0.5 mg/mL, meperidine hydrochloride 10 mg/mL, and sufentanil citrate 12.5 microg/mL (of sufentanil) per milliliter individually in colorless 15-mL borosilicate glass screw-cap culture tubes with polypropylene caps. Physical stability of the admixtures was assessed by visual examination and by measuring turbidity and particle size and content. Chemical stability was assessed by stability-indicating high-performance liquid chromatography. Evaluations were performed immediately and one and four hours after mixing.

RESULTS

All of the admixtures were initially clear and colorless in normal fluorescent room light and when viewed with a high-intensity monodirectional light (Tyndall beam) and were essentially without haze. Changes in turbidity were minor throughout the study. Particulates measuring 10 microm or larger were few in all samples throughout the observation period. The admixtures remained colorless throughout the study. No loss of palonosetron hydrochloride occurred with any of the opiate agonists tested over the four-hour period. Similarly, little or no loss of the opiate agonists occurred over the four-hour period.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron hydrochloride was physically and chemically stable with fentanyl citrate, hydromorphone hydrochloride, meperidine hydrochloride, morphine sulfate, and sufentanil citrate during simulated Y-site administration.

Pharmacology, pharmacogenetics, and clinical efficacy of 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists for postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists has improved the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting, but has not completely eliminated it. In this article, we discuss the pharmacology of 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists and the impact of pharmacogenetics on postoperative nausea and vomiting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron, palonosetron, and tropisetron have similar mechanisms of action but different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Genetic polymorphism in the cytochrome P450 mono-oxygenase system, drug efflux transporter adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette subfamily B member 1 and 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor subunits also contribute to the interindividual variation in response to different 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists. These differences account for differences in the duration of action and clinical efficacy of these agents.

SUMMARY

Pharmacogenetics testing in patients may help differentiate responders to 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists from non-responders and allow the anesthesiologist to individualize antiemetic therapy. The cost-effectiveness of such screening in postoperative nausea and vomiting management has, however, not been evaluated. Given the multifactorial nature of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a multimodal approach to reduce or eliminate risk factors will be most successful in its management.

Prevención y control de las náuseas y los vómitos inducidos por quimioterapia

Nausea and vomiting are considered one of the most distressing side-effects of chemotherapy. Complete control of acute and delayed emesis improves quality of life and increases adherence to treatment. The frequency of nausea and vomiting depends primarily on the emetogenic potential of the chemotherapeutic agents used. With the standard antiemetic therapy (5HT-3 receptor antagonists in combination with dexamethasone) approximately 13% of patients receiving chemotherapy have vomiting in the acute phase and almost 50% in the delayed phase. A new group of antiemetic drugs, the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, in combination with standard therapy significantly improves emesis protection in the acute and in the delayed phase, although control of nausea is not so effective. Nowadays chemotherapy-induced emesis still occurs. Recent developments in antiemetic therapy and responsibility to achieve the best control of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy justified a review of this problem, which is frequently underestimated by physicians and nurses.

An Approach to Evaluating Drug-Nutrient Interactions

Although the significance of interactions between drugs is widely appreciated, little attention has been given to interactions between drugs and nutrients. Pharmacists are challenged to remember documented interactions involving available drugs, and they face the possibility that each newly approved therapeutic agent may be involved not only in unrecognized drug-drug interactions but in drug-nutrient interactions as well. A more consistent approach to evaluating drug-nutrient interactions is needed. The approach must be systematic in order to assess the influence of nutritional status, food, or specific nutrients on a drug's pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, as well as the influence of a drug on overall nutritional status or on the status of a specific nutrient. We provide such a process, using several recently approved drugs as working examples. Risk factors and clinical relevance are described, with distinctions made between documented and potential interactions. Application of this process by the pharmacist to any drug will help increase their expertise. Furthermore, full consideration by pharmacists of all possible interactions of the drug regimens used in practice can allow for improved patient care.

The Pathophysiology of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a major debilitating side effect of oncology treatment despite recent advances in pharmaceutical management. Nurses who provide care to patients experiencing nausea and vomiting are often only marginally aware of the pathophysiological processes involved in the treatment. A better understanding of the science behind current interventions to reduce nausea and vomiting may help nurses use those interventions more effectively. This article reviews current knowledge about the pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. By understanding the pathophysiology behind this patient experience, gastroenterology nurses can develop a better understanding of the common symptoms of nausea and vomiting in general. When a nurse understands the complexity of factors causing nausea and vomiting, he or she will be better able to provide appropriate interventions to reduce these symptoms.