PONV Management in Adult Patients: Evidence-based Summary

PURPOSE

To summarize the evidence on perioperative nausea and vomiting management in adult patients worldwide.

DESIGN

This is a summary of the best evidence on postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults.

METHODS

Databases such as British Medical Journal Best Practice, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, National Guideline Clearing House, Guidelines International Network, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN), Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Yimaitong Clinical Guidelines, China Anesthesia Official website, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP were searched to collect the relevant guidelines for clinical decision-making, best practices, systematic review, evidence summary, and expert consensus about perioperative nausea and vomiting management. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to January 2022. Two authors independently evaluated the quality of the included literature and extracted and summarized the evidence that met the quality criteria.

FINDINGS

A total of 22 studies, including 1 best practice, 2 clinical decision-making articles, 7 evidence summaries, 1 clinical guideline, 9 systematic reviews, and 2 expert consensuses, were included. The summary of 37 pieces of evidence from 7 aspects: risk factors, assessment methods, multimodal prevention strategy, health education, nondrug intervention, drug prevention, postoperative analgesia management strategy, and organization management.

CONCLUSIONS

The health care team should select the best evidence according to the characteristics of the department and clinical practice, scientifically manage perioperative nausea and vomiting of patients, reduce the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting, and promote the accelerated rehabilitation of patients.

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.

The effect of ginger extract on cisplatin-induced acute anorexia in rats

Cisplatin is a platinum-based chemotherapeutic agent widely used to treat various cancers. However, several side effects have been reported in treated patients. Among these, acute anorexia is one of the most severe secondary effects. In this study, a single oral administration of 100 or 500 mg/kg ginger extract (GE) significantly alleviated the cisplatin-induced decrease in food intake in rats. However, these body weight and water intake decreases were reversed in the 100 mg/kg group rats. To elucidate the underlying mechanism of action, serotonin (5-HT) and 5-HT2C, 3A, and 4 receptors in the nodose ganglion of the vagus nerve were investigated. The results showed that cisplatin-induced increases in serotonin levels in both the blood and nodose ganglion tissues were significantly decreased by100 and 500 mg/kg of GE administration. On 5-HT receptors, 5-HT3A and 4, but not 2C receptors, were affected by cisplatin, and GE 100 and 500 mg/kg succeeded in downregulating the evoked upregulated gene of these receptors. Protein expression of 5-HT3A and 4 receptors were also reduced in the 100 mg/kg group. Furthermore, the injection of 5-HT3A, and 4 receptors antagonists (palonostron, 0.1 mg/kg, i.p.; piboserod, 1 mg/kg, i.p., respectively) in cisplatin treated rats prevented the decrease in food intake. Using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis, [6]-gingerol and [6]-shogaol were identified and quantified as the major components of GE, comprising 4.12% and 2.15% of the GE, respectively. Although [6]-gingerol or [6]-shogaol alone failed to alleviate the evoked anorexia, when treated together, the effect was significant on the cisplatin-induced decrease in food intake. These results show that GE can be considered a treatment option to alleviate cisplatin-induced anorexia.

Incidence and risk factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients following lobectomy and application of analgesic pumps

Objective

To investigate the occurrence rate and risk factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in lung cancer patients following lobectomy and application of analgesic pumps.

Methods

This retrospective study reviewed clinical data from patients that had undergone lobectomy for lung cancer under general anaesthesia. The risk factors of PONV were analysed using binary logistic regression models.

Results

A total of 203 patients (97 females) were enrolled. The rate of PONV was 29.6% (60 of 203 patients) for all patients, 42.3% (41 of 97 patients) for female patients and 17.9% (19 of 106 patients) for male patients. Female patients undergoing thoracotomy (odds ratio [OR] 7.770, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.747, 34.568) or having surgery durations ≥120 min (OR 4.493, 95% CI 1.502, 12.851) were significantly more susceptible to PONV. The risk of PONV in female patients that received postoperative dolasetron (100 mg, once a day) was significantly lower (OR 0.075, 95% CI 0.007, 0.834). For male patients, the risk of PONV was significantly lower in those with a body mass index ≥24 kg/m² (OR 0.166; 95% CI 0.035, 0.782).

Conclusion

Female and male patients have different risk factors for PONV following lobectomy for lung cancer and application of analgesic pumps.

A Randomised Study To Compare Palonosetron With Ondansetron for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) Following Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgeries

Background

Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in susceptible patients can be unacceptably high (70-80% reported incidence). This study was designed to evaluate the effect of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Methodology

In this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, non-smoking females aged 18-70 years, weighing 40-90 kg, and posted for elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries were enrolled into ondansetron (Group A, n = 65) and palonosetron (Group B, n = 65) groups. Palonosetron (1 mcg/kg IV) or ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg IV) were administered just before induction. Postoperatively, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, PONV (scored on a scale of 0-3), need for rescue antiemetic, complete response, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects were evaluated up to 48 h following surgery. Normally distributed continuous variables were compared using Student’s t-test. In addition, the Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test were used to compare nominal categorical data as deemed appropriate. P-value <0.05 was observed as statistically significant.

Results

The overall PONV scores and postoperative nausea scores during 0-2 and 24-48 hours were comparable, but PONV scores (p = 0.023) and postoperative nausea scores (p = 0.010) during 2-24 hours were significantly lesser in Group B compared to Group A. There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative vomiting score or retching during 0-48 hours. The amount of first-line rescue antiemetic used during 2-24 hours was significantly higher in Group A (56%) than in Group B (31%) (p = 0.012; p <0.05). A complete response to the drug during 2-24 hours was significantly higher (p = 0.023) in Group B (63%) compared to Group A (40%), whereas response was comparable during 0-2 and 24-48 hours. Both groups had a comparable incidence of adverse effects and patient satisfaction scores.

Conclusion

Palonosetron has a superior anti-nausea effect, less need for rescue antiemetics, and lesser incidence of total PONV compared to ondansetron during 2-24h and comparable effect to ondansetron during 0-2h and 24-48h postoperative period in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Effect of Palonosetron on Physical Symptoms of Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a typical and unpleasant physical symptom that occurs in patients after surgery, and it may be one of the most challenging elements of the recovery process. PONV can be caused by a variety of factors, including surgery itself, anesthesia, or medications. Palonosetron is a medication that is now licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of this ailment. The efficacy of palonosetron in reducing physical symptoms in patients following surgery was investigated in this meta-analysis and comprehensive review. Methods. Following a quick search of databases such as CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, the Science quotation index’s Web site, the United States clinical trial check-in, the United Kingdom clinical trial check-in, the New Zealand clinical trial check-in, and the Australia check-in, as well as outlines of major anesthesia meetings held in the previous five years, we were able to get a good start on our research. Growing adults who had surgery and were given other drugs were compared to individuals who did get palonosetron in randomized controlled trials. Results. A total of 8324 participants were recruited in 10 different clinical studies. It has been shown that palonosetron may significantly reduce the 24-hour PONV incidence and 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41–0.86. When comparing the 6-hour and 48-hour time periods, the incidences of experiencing PONV were neither statistically different (RR: 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.61–1.09) or considerably different (RR: 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.33–1.10). Following in a similar vein, there was no significant difference between the groups in the occurrence of PONV after 48 hours (RR: 0.82, 95 percent CI: 0.59–1.14). The most often reported side effects of the medicine were headaches and dizziness, which were the most common. Regardless of the drug used, the difference in adverse reactions was not statistically significant. Conclusion. When it comes to the prevention of early PONV, it has been shown that palonosetron is more effective than other medications. Palonosetron, on the other hand, has been demonstrated to be more effective than other medications in preventing vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.

Comparison of palonosetron with combined palonosetron and midazolam for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an undesirable complication in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Combination therapy via different mechanisms of action for antiemetic prophylaxis has been warranted for effective treatment of PONV. This study was designed to compare the prophylactic antiemetic effect between midazolam combined with palonosetron (group MP) and palonosetron alone (group P) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was investigated in non-smoking female. Eighty-eight patients were randomly divided into 2 groups with 44 patients each. Group MP received 0.05 mg/kg of midazolam intravenously before induction of anesthesia whereas group P received the same volume of normal saline. Immediately after anesthetic induction, 0.075 mg of palonosetron was administered to both the groups. The incidence and severity of PONV were assessed during 2 time intervals (0-2 hours, 2-24 hours), postoperatively.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during 24 hours after surgery was lower in group MP as compared to group P. There was also a significant difference in the use of rescue antiemetics. The severity of nausea was significantly lower in group MP as compared to group P, in the initial 2 hours after surgery. The incidence of side effects was similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

In the prevention of PONV, midazolam combined with palonosetron, administered during induction of anesthesia was more effective as compared to palonosetron alone.

Netupitant/Palonosetron: A Review in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA; Akynzeo^®), available in oral and intravenous (IV) formulations, is a fixed-dose combination of the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist netupitant (or the prodrug, fosnetupitant, in the IV formulation) and the second-generation serotonin 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist palonosetron. Administered as a single dose, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron (in combination with dexamethasone) is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults. In clinical trials, (fos)netupitant/palonosetron plus dexamethasone was associated with high complete response rates (no emesis and no rescue medication) in the acute, delayed and overall phases in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with efficacy maintained over multiple cycles. Further, oral netupitant/palonosetron was found to be superior to palonosetron and non-inferior to aprepitant plus granisetron in preventing CINV in individual trials. Both the oral and IV formulations of the drug combination are well tolerated. The fixed-dose combination is concordant with guideline recommendations and provides a simple and convenient option for prophylaxis against acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

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.

5HT3 RA plus dexamethasone plus aprepitant for controlling delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in colorectal cancer

Delayed chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is not well controlled in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing oxaliplatin (L‐OHP)‐based chemotherapy. Whether neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist addition to a first‐generation 5HT₃ antagonist (1st 5‐HT₃RA) and dexamethasone (DEX) is beneficial to these patients remains controversial. Furthermore, whether palonosetron (PALO) or aprepitant (APR) is more effective in controlling delayed CINV is unclear. We, therefore, investigated whether PALO+DEX or 1st 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR was more effective in controlling delayed CINV, and the risk factors for delayed CINV, in CRC patients undergoing L‐OHP–based chemotherapy. Data were pooled from two prospective observational Japanese studies and a phase III trial to compare CINV incidence between the PALO + DEX (PALO) and 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR (APR) groups by propensity score–matched analysis. CINV risk factors were identified using logistic regression models. The CINV incidence was higher in the PALO group than in the APR group. Logistic regression analysis revealed alcohol consumption, motion sickness, and the PALO+DEX regimen as independent risk factors for delayed nausea, and female sex and the PALO+DEX regimen as those for delayed vomiting. Compared with prophylactic PALO + DEX, 1st 5‐HT₃RA+DEX+APR was more effective in controlling delayed CINV. Thus, CRC patients receiving L‐OHP–based chemotherapy should be treated with three antiemetics, including APR.

A randomized study to compare palonosetron with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following middle ear surgeries

Background and Aims:

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has multifactorial etiology. It is a commonly encountered morbidity after anesthesia specially following middle ear surgery. Various antiemetic medications have been tried with mixed responses. Palonosetron is a newer 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist marketed for PONV prophylaxis. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after middle ear surgeries.

Material and Methods:

One hundred patients of ASA class 1 or 2, aged 18 years and above, weighing between 40 and 90 kg scheduled for elective middle ear surgeries were randomly assigned into palonosetron group (n = 50) and ondansetron group (n = 50). Palonosetron was administered in dose of 1 mcg/kg maximum up to 75 mcg and ondansetron in dose of 0.1 mg/kg maximum up to 8 mg. Intraoperative monitoring of QTc interval was also done to see any significant change after the antiemetic administration. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and side effects were recorded over 2, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively. All parameters were compared between the two groups as mean ± standard deviation and as count (%). Two sided P values of <0.05 were considered significant.

Results:

The incidence of PONV (P = 0.002), nausea (P = 0.0002) and vomiting (P = 0.006) was significantly lower in palonosetron group than in ondansetron group in 2- to 12-hour period. QTc interval prolongation, a known side effect of ondansetron was not found in palonosetron group intraoperatively.

Conclusion:

Palonosetron was found to be superior to ondansetron up to 12 hours after the surgery with no significant effect on QTc interval.

Effects of palonosetron for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Background

The preemptive multimodal pain protocols used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often cause emesis postoperatively. We investigated whether palonosetron prophylaxis reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk patients after TKA.

Methods

We randomized 120 female patients undergoing TKA to receive either palonosetron (0.075 mg, intravenous) or no antiemetic prophylaxis (0.9% saline, control group). All patients were given spinal anesthesia, a continuous femoral nerve block, and fentanyl-based intravenous patient controlled analgesia. Patients undergoing staged bilateral TKA were assigned to one group for the first knee and the other group for the second knee. The overall incidence of PONV, the incidences of both nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea, complete response, requirement for rescue antiemetics, pain level, opioid consumption, and satisfaction scores were evaluated during three periods: 0–2, 2–24, and 24–48 h postoperatively. We also compared PONV and pain between the first and second TKA.

Results

The incidence of PONV during the first 48 h was lower in the palonosetron group compared with the controls (22 vs. 41%, p = 0.028), especially 2–24 h after surgery, as was the nausea and vomiting respectively. The severity of nausea was lower in the palonosetron group (p = 0.010). The complete response rate (93 vs. 73%, p = 0.016) and satisfaction score (84 ± 12 vs. 79 ± 15, p = 0.032) were higher in the palonosetron group during 2–24 h after surgery. Patients who underwent a second operation complained of more severe pain, and consumed more opioids than those of the first operation. There was no difference in the incidence of PONV between the first and second operations.

Conclusions

Palonosetron prophylaxis reduced the incidence and severity of PONV in high-risk patients managed with multimodal pain protocol for 48 h, notably 2–24 h after TKA.

Efficacy of Palonosetron-Dexamethasone Combination Versus Palonosetron Alone for Preventing Nausea and Vomiting Related to Opioid-Based Analgesia: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Trial

Background: The efficacy of dexamethasone plus palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis is not firmly established. This randomized, double-blind, controlled study evaluated whether the combination was superior to palonosetron alone in preventing PONV in patients receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after upper extremity surgery. Methods: A total of 202 patients undergoing upper extremity surgery were randomly assigned to group P (palonosetron alone) or group PD (palonosetron plus dexamethasone). Group P patients received palonosetron 0.075 mg and normal saline 1.6 mL; group PD patients received palonosetron 0.075 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg. In both groups, palonosetron was added to the IV-PCA opioid infusion, which was continued for 48 h postoperatively. Incidence and severity of nausea, incidence of vomiting, rescue antiemetic requirements, pain intensity, and rescue analgesic requirements were evaluated for 72 h postoperatively. Quality of recovery was assessed using the quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15) questionnaire. Results: The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in group PD than in group P at 0-48 h postoperatively (61.5% vs 77.1%; p = 0.019). Severity of nausea at 0-6 h postoperatively was significantly less in group PD compared with group P (none/mild/moderate/severe: 49/22/15/10 vs. 36/16/25/19, p = 0.008). The incidence of vomiting and rescue antiemetic requirements were similar between groups. Pain intensity was significantly less in group PD than in group P at 0-48 h and 48-72 h postoperatively. Global QoR-15 was similar 24 h postoperatively between groups. Conclusions: Dexamethasone-palonosetron combination therapy reduced PONV incidence and postoperative pain in patients receiving opioid-based analgesia after upper extremity surgery.

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.

Comparative investigation of the anti-emetic effects of granisetron and palonosetron during the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting has a considerable negative impact on the quality of life of patients with cancer. Unfortunately, there has been little progress in the development of supportive therapies for the anti-emetic treatment of patients with hematopoietic tumors. This lack of supportive treatments motivated the present retrospective comparison between two groups of anti-emetic drugs. The current study aimed to compare granisetron and palonosetron in order to determine which is more effective, based on cases of patients undergoing remission induction therapy and consolidation therapy for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Granisetron or palonosetron were administered in Japanese-approved dosages (3 mg granisetron once per day for 5 or 7 days, or one administration of 0.75 mg palonosetron). Patients were randomly selected, and their clinical information was acquired from medical records. The data represent the doctors' and nurses' records. The results demonstrated that palonosetron treatment (in which the drug was administered alone or in combination with aprepitant) was more effective than granisetron treatment for the complete control of acute vomiting. Therefore, in the treatment of hematopoietic malignancies, palonosetron is an effective regimen to be administered alongside more than 5 continuous days of anti-cancer agents. Furthermore, the combination of palonosetron and aprepitant was found to be the optimal combination. In conclusion, palonosetron is superior to granisetron for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy for hematological cancers. In Japan, the standard dose of palonosetron is 0.75 mg; a dose of 0.25 mg of palonosetron must be compared with 0.75 mg in future studies.

Modular Access to N-Substituted cis 5-Amino-3-hydroxypiperidines

A sequence of oxidative cleavage/reductive amination/reductive cleavage enables the preparation of N-substituted cis 5-amino-3-hydroxypiperidines from a readily available bicyclic adduct. This new route provides straightforward and versatile access to drug-relevant scaffolds or fragments.

Efficacy of Palonosetron vs. Ramosetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

This study was designed as a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included the comparison of palonosetron and ramosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, KoreaMed, and Google Scholar databases (PROSPERO protocol number CRD42015026009). Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) during the first 48 hrs after surgery. The total 48-hr period was further analyzed in time epochs of 0-6 hrs (early), 6-24 hrs (late), and 24-48 hrs (delayed). Subgroup analyses according to number of risk factors, sex, and type of surgery were also performed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 1373 patients were analyzed. There was no difference in PON or POV between the two drugs for the total 48-hr period after surgery. However, palonosetron was more effective in preventing POV during the delayed period overall [relative risk (RR), 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39 to 0.89; p=0.013], as well as after subgroup analyses for females and laparoscopies (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86; p=0.009 and RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.94; p=0.033). Subgroup analysis for spine surgery showed that ramosetron was more effective in reducing POV during the total 48-hr (RR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.46 to 7.63; p=0.004) and early periods (RR, 8.47; 95% CI, 1.57 to 45.72; p=0.013).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis discovered no definite difference in PONV prevention between the two drugs. The significant findings that were seen in different time epochs and subgroup analyses should be confirmed in future RCTs.

Antiemetic therapy for non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Although antiemetic management in cancer therapy has improved, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting remain common and troubling adverse events. Chemotherapeutic agents are classified based on their emetogenic effects, and appropriate antiemetics are recommended according to this categorization. Chemotherapy categorized as moderately emetogenic is associated with a wide spectrum of emetic risks. Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens have been recently reclassified as highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimen. This review focuses on antiemetic pharmacotherapy in patients receiving non-anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. Combination therapy with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor agonist, preferably palonosetron, and dexamethasone is the standard therapy in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, although triple therapy with add-on neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist is used as an alternative treatment strategy. Among moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, carboplatin-containing chemotherapy has considerable emetic potential, particularly during the delayed phase. However, the additional of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to the standard antiemetic therapy prevents carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. For regimens including oxaliplatin, the benefit of adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist requires further clarification.

Comparative Pharmacology and Guide to the Use of the Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Since the introduction of the serotonin 5-hydroxy tryptamine 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists in the early 1990s, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) has decreased, yet continues to be a problem for the surgical patient. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists has helped define the approach and role of these antiemetics in the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. Pharmacological and clinical differences exist among these medications resulting in corresponding differences in effectiveness, safety, optimal dosage, time of administration, and use as combination and rescue antiemetic therapy. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist antiemetics has improved the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. The most recent consensus guidelines for PONV published in 2014 outline the use of these antiemetics. The 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists play an important role to help prevent PONV and PDNV in perioperative care pathways such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). Comparisons and guidelines for use of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists in relation to the risk for PONV and PDNV are reviewed.

Hypothalamic inflammation and food intake regulation during chronic illness

Anorexia is a common symptom in chronic illness. It contributes to malnutrition and strongly affects survival and quality of life. A common denominator of many chronic diseases is an elevated inflammatory status, which is considered to play a pivotal role in the failure of food-intake regulating systems in the hypothalamus. In this review, we summarize findings on the role of hypothalamic inflammation on food intake regulation involving hypothalamic neuropeptide Y (NPY) and pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC). Furthermore, we outline the role of serotonin in the inability of these peptide based food-intake regulating systems to respond and adapt to changes in energy metabolism during chronic disease.

Evaluation of palonosetron and dexamethasone with or without aprepitant to prevent carboplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Although antiemetic management has improved, better control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), particularly during the delayed phase, is needed. The benefit of combination therapy using dexamethasone and the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron compared with that of other such receptor antagonists in carboplatin-based chemotherapy is unclear. The effectiveness of adding aprepitant for CINV treatment in moderate emetogenic chemotherapy is also unknown. We compared the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy using aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone with that of double antiemetic therapy using palonosetron and dexamethasone in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving carboplatin-containing chemotherapy.

METHODS

Chemotherapy-naïve patients with non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled in this prospective controlled study. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to groups receiving either double antiemetic therapy with palonosetron and dexamethasone, or triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. Complete response rate (no vomiting episode and no rescue therapy) was evaluated as the primary endpoint during the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.

RESULTS

The aprepitant add-on and double therapy groups showed overall complete response rates of 80.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 68.4-92.6%) and 76.9% (95% CI: 63.7-90.1%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.81; 95% CI; 0.27-2.36; p=0.788), respectively. Complete responses in the acute and delayed phases and overall incidences of treatment-related adverse events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

According to the selection design, triple antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone was not considered as an option for further studies.

Improved prophylaxis of postoperative nausea vomiting: Palonosetron a novel antiemetic

Many anti-emetics are used in clinical practice. Palonosetron hydrochloride is one of them. It is a novel, centrally acting antiemetic, and anti-nausea agent. This drug is an antagonist of serotonin receptor subtype 3 (5-HT3). This drug has longer duration of action which makes it useful in the prevention and treatment of acute and delayed onset of nausea and vomiting. This drug was initially used for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. Federal drug agency (FDA) has approved it for prevention and treatment of post-operative nausea and vomiting. The literature search for this article was done using Google scholar and Pubmed using the terms "Palonosetron," "longer duration of action," "nausea," "vomiting," and "postoperative".

A phase II clinical trial of palonosetron for the management of delayed vomiting in gynecological cancer patients receiving paclitaxel/carboplatin therapy

There are currently no studies demonstrating the effects of palonosetron on delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in gynecological cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with moderately emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents. We conducted a phase II clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in patients receiving paclitaxel/carboplatin (TC) therapy. The study population consisted of 42 patients who had been diagnosed with gynecological malignancies and treated with TC. On day 1, 0.75 mg/body palonosetron and 19.8 mg/body dexamethasone were administered intravenously immediately prior to TC therapy. Dexamethasone in daily doses of 6.6 mg/body was also administered intravenously on days 2 and 3. The efficacy and safety of palonosetron + dexamethasone were evaluated by the self-completion method using the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Antiemesis Tool during an observation period lasting from day 1 through day 8 of the initial cycle of TC therapy. The severity of the nausea was assessed using a visual analog scale. During the acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-96 h) and overall (0-96 h) periods, the complete response rates were 95.2, 90.5 and 85.7%, respectively, whereas the complete control rates were 90.5, 85.7 and 78.6%, respectively. Grade ≥ 2 constipation and diarrhea developed in 1 patient (2.4%) each. The palonosetron + dexamethasone regimen proved to be effective for delayed CINV in gynecological cancer patients receiving TC therapy. This combined antiemetic regimen was associated with only mild adverse reactions and may serve as supportive therapy, allowing cancer chemotherapy to be continued while maintaining an adequate quality of life.

Effects of Palonosetron on Perioperative Cardiovascular Complications in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery With General Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

We retrospectively investigated whether palonosetron administered during the induction of general anesthesia is associated with an increased risk of perioperative cardiovascular complications in a single tertiary center cohort consisting of 4,517 palonosetron-exposed patients and 4,517 propensity score-matched patients without palonosetron exposure. The primary endpoint was a composite of perioperative cardiovascular complications, including intraoperative cardiac arrhythmia, intraoperative cardiac death, and myocardial injury within the first postoperative week, and there was no significant difference between the groups (odds ratio [OR] = 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.92-1.19). As secondary endpoints, intraoperative cardioversion, cardiac compression, use of cardiovascular drugs, postoperative hospital stay, and in-hospital mortality showed no differences between the groups. However, the palonosetron group showed decreased intraoperative hypotension (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.79-0.97) and length of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay (4.26 ± 9.86 vs. 6.14 ± 16.75; P = 0.026). Palonosetron did not increase the rate of perioperative cardiovascular complications, and can therefore be used safely during anesthetic induction.

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.

Effects of pretreatment with intravenous palonosetron for propofol-remifentanil-based anesthesia in breast and thyroid cancer surgery: a double-blind, randomized, controlled study

Background

We postulated that palonosetron, a novel antiemetic agent, might have the effect of alleviating injection pain from propofol and rocuronium. A double-blind, controlled study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of palonosetron on injection pain during total intravenous anesthesia and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) using propofol-remifentanil in breast and thyroid cancer surgery.

Methods

Sixty patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups. Before injection of propofol and rocuronium, patients in group S (n = 30) received 4 ml of saline and patients in group P (n = 30) received 75 µg (1.5 ml) of palonosetron mixed with 2.5 ml of saline (n = 30). Patients were evaluated by a blinded anesthesiologist with regard to the scoring of injection pain of propofol, withdrawal response by rocuronium, PONV, shivering, postoperative pain, recall of pain, and overall satisfaction.

Results

The differences between groups in the incidence of injection pain due to propofol and rocuronium were insignificant. However, in group P, the severity of propofol-induced injection pain (3% vs. 33%, P = 0.003) and postoperative pain (P = 0.038) was significantly lower during the first 12 h after surgery. No differences were observed between the groups with respect to PONV, shivering, recall of pain, and overall satisfaction.

Conclusions

We concluded that pretreatment of palonosetron was effective to reduce the severity of propofol-induced injection pain and early postoperative pain, although it did not reduce the incidence of injection pain from propofol and rocuronium.

Refractory nausea and vomiting in the setting of well-controlled idiopathic intracranial hypertension

Summary A 27-year-old woman with a history of recurrent nausea and vomiting in the setting of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) was admitted for control of unremitting nausea and vomiting. Initial antiemetic therapy included optimisation of IIH therapy by titrating acetazolamide, in addition to using ondansetron and metoclopramide as needed, with minimal relief. She was ultimately treated with palonosetron with complete resolution of her acute nausea. Nausea, often treated with 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, approved for perioperative and chemotherapy-induced nausea, are used off-label to treat nausea and vomiting outside of those settings. The efficacy of different regimens has been compared in the literature and continues to remain controversial. When choosing from different 5-HT3 antagonists there are other considerations, in addition to efficacy to consider: dosing schedule, half-life, time of onset, duration and cost-to-benefit ratio, and although one 5-HT3 antagonist may not have been effective, another one may be. In our case palonosetron, with a significantly longer half-life than other 5-HT3 antagonists, was effective in resolving nausea when compared with the more commonly used ondansetron.

Efficacy of palonosetron versus ramosetron on preventing opioid-based analgesia-related nausea and vomiting after lumbar spinal surgery: a prospective, randomized, and double-blind trial

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, and double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of ramosetron and palonosetron on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) associated with opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCAopioid) after lumbar spinal surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

IV-PCAopioid, an effective method to control pain after lumbar spinal surgery, accompanies PONV. Ramosetron and palonosetron are novel 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 antagonists known to have longer action duration and higher receptor affinity than their congeners, whereas their relative efficacy has not been validated yet.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-six patients were randomly and evenly allocated to receive either 0.3 mg of ramosetron or 0.075 mg of palonosetron 10 minutes before the end of operation. Ramosetron or palonosetron were also added to the IV-PCAopioid, which was continuously infused for 48 hours postoperatively. The incidence and intensity of PONV were serially assessed for 72 hours postoperatively. Intensity of pain, volume of IV-PCAopioid consumption, use of rescue analgesics and antiemetics, and adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PONV was lower in the ramosetron group than the palonosetron group (50% vs. 67%, P = 0.014) without any intergroup difference in the incidence of vomiting. Nausea intensity scores were also lower until 6 (P = 0.041) and 24 hour (P = 0.026) postoperatively in the ramosetron group than the palonosetron group. Pain intensity scores were significantly lower in the ramosetron group than the palonosetron group for 72 hours postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in term of reducing the incidence and severity of nausea associated with IV-PCAopioid after lumbar spinal surgery. This favorable influence of ramosetron on PONV was translated to significant postoperative pain reduction compared with palonosetron.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Intravenous palonosetron increases the incidence of QTc prolongation during sevoflurane general anesthesia for laparotomy

Background

Palonosetron is a recently introduced 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist useful for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. However, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists increase the corrected QT (QTc) interval in patients who undergo general anesthesia. This retrospective study was performed to evaluate whether palonosetron would induce a QTc prolongation in patients undergoing general anesthesia with sevoflurane.

Methods

We reviewed a database of 81 patients who underwent general anesthesia with sevoflurane. We divided the records into palonosetron (n = 41) and control (n = 40) groups according to the use of intraoperative palonosetron, and analyzed the electrocardiographic data before anesthesia and 30, 60, 90, and 120 min after skin incision. Changes in the QTc interval from baseline, mean blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature, and sevoflurane concentrations at each time point were compared between the two groups.

Results

The QTc intervals at skin incision, and 30, 60, 90, and 120 min after the skin incision during general anesthesia were significantly longer than those at baseline in the two groups (P < 0.001). The changes in the QTc intervals were not different between the two groups (P = 0.41). However, six patients in the palonosetron group showed a QTc interval > 500 ms 30 min after skin incision, whereas no patient did in the control group (P = 0.01). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in mean blood pressure, body temperature, heart rate, or sevoflurane concentrations.

Conclusions

Palonosetron may induce QTc prolongation during the early general anesthesia period with sevoflurane.

Comparison of palonosetron with ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after gynecological laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications after anesthesia and surgery. This study was designed to compare the effects of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients receiving intravenous opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

One hundred non-smoking female patients scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery were randomly assigned into the palonosetron group (n = 50) or the ondansetron group (n = 50). Palonosetron 0.075 mg was injected as a bolus in the palonosetron group. Ondansetron 8 mg was injected as a bolus and 16 mg was added to the IV-PCA in the ondansetron group. The incidences of nausea, vomiting and side effects was recorded at 2 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h, postoperatively.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of PONV during 72 h after operation. However, the incidence of vomiting was lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group (18% vs. 4%, P = 0.025). No differences were observed in use of antiemetics and the side effects between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV were similar in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery and receiving opioid-based IV-PCA.

Seizure developed after palonosetron intravenous injection during recovery from general anesthesia -A case report-

Seizure associated with antiemetics is rare. We report seizure associated with a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist in a 38 years old female. The patient underwent ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy due to left upper ureter stone. After operation, the patient complained of nausea in the postanesthetic recovery unit. In order to subside symptom, the patient was administrated 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, palonosetron, 0.075 mg intravenously. Shortly after administration of that, the patient developed generalized tonic-clonic seizures. The symptom was subsided after midazolam and thiopental sodium were injected. But 40 minutes later, seizure recurred and subsided with midazolam again. The patient recovered completely without any specific sequelae.

Anti-emetic effect of ondansetron and palonosetron in thyroidectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron is a new potent 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 antagonist. Although this drug is thought to be more effective in patients receiving opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), clinical data are lacking. This study compared the effects of i.v. ondansetron and palonosetron administered at the end of surgery in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk patients receiving i.v. PCA after thyroidectomy.

METHODS

A total of 100 female non-smoking subjects were randomly assigned into a palonosetron group or an ondansetron group. Ondansetron was given as an 8 mg bolus and 16 mg was added to the i.v. PCA mixture. In the palonosetron group, 0.075 mg was injected as a bolus only. Fentanyl-based PCA was provided for 24 h after operation. The incidence of nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea, requirement for rescue anti-emetics, and adverse effects were evaluated during 0-2 and 2-24 h.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during the 24 h postoperative period was lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group (42% vs 62%, P=0.045). No differences were observed between the groups during the first 2 h. However, the incidence of nausea and vomiting and nausea severity were significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group during 2-24 h. The only difference in the use of rescue anti-emetics was at 2-24 h (10% with palonosetron compared with 28% with ondansetron, P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron is more effective than ondansetron for high-risk patients receiving fentanyl-based PCA after thyroidectomy, especially 2-24 h after surgery.

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women scheduled for breast cancer surgery

Breast cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A number of approaches are available for the management of PONV after breast cancer surgery. First, the risk factors related to patient characteristics, surgical procedure, anesthetic technique, and postoperative care can be reduced. More specifically, the use of propofol-based anesthesia can reduce the incidence of PONV. Secondly, a wide range of prophylactic antiemetics, including butyrophenones (droperidol), benzamides (metoclopramide), glucocorticoids (dexamethasone), clonidine, a small dose of propofol, and serotonin receptor (SR) antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, and palonosetron), are available for preventing PONV. Thirdly, antiemetic therapy combined with granisetron and droperidol or dexamethasone, and a multimodal management strategy which includes a package consisting of dexamethasone, total intravenous anesthesia with propofol, and ondansetron are highly effective in preventing PONV. Unfortunately, the use of glucocorticoids and SR antagonists for preventing PONV is not permitted in Japan according to national health insurance guidelines. Fourth, electro-acupoint stimulation at the P6 point (Nei-Guwan) as a non-pharmacologic therapy is as effective as ondansetron for preventing PONV. Knowledge of the risk factors for PONV, antiemetics, and a non-pharmacologic approach are needed for the management of PONV in women undergoing breast cancer surgery.

Single dose palonosetron and dexamethasone in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by high emetogenic ABVD regimen in Hodgkin Lymphoma patients

To evaluate the efficacy of a new agent, palonosetron, in Hodgkin Lymphoma patients treated with ABVD regimen. Complete response during the overall phase of the first ABVD cycle, was the primary endpoint. Secondary end points were: emesis-free patients and use of rescue medication during the acute and overall phases. From January 2008 to February 2009 36 patients were enrolled. The primary endpoint (CR 0-120 h) was achieved by 55.6% patients. In conclusion our study demonstrated that a single dose of palonosetron plus a single dose of dexamethasone was effective in preventing CINV in patients treated with ABVD regimen.

Therapeutics of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists: current uses and future directions

The 5-Hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor is a member of the cys-loop family of ligand gated ion channels, of which the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor is the prototype. All other 5-HT receptors identified to date are metabotropic receptors. The 5-HT3 receptor is present in the central and peripheral nervous systems, as well as a number of non-nervous tissues. As an ion channel that is permeable to the cations, Na(+), K(+), and Ca(2+), the 5-HT3 receptor mediates fast depolarizing responses in pre- and post-synaptic neurons. As such, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists that are used clinically block afferent and efferent synaptic transmission. The most well established physiological roles of the 5-HT3 receptor are to coordinate emesis and regulate gastrointestinal motility. Currently marketed 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are indicated for the treatment of chemotherapy, radiation, and anesthesia-induced nausea and vomiting, as well as irritable bowel syndrome. Other therapeutic uses that have been explored include pain and drug addiction. The 5-HT3 receptor is one of a number of receptors that play a role in mediating nausea and vomiting, and as such, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists demonstrate the greatest anti-emetic efficacy when administered in combination with other drug classes.

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.