A multicenter phase II trial of the triplet antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine for a cisplatin-containing regimen. - PATROL-I

Dexamethasone is one of the key antiemetic agents and is widely used even now. However, dexamethasone has been associated with several adverse reactions even after short-term administration. Therefore, developing a steroid-free antiemetic regimen is an important issue to consider. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine in a multi-institutional phase II study. Chemotherapy-naive patients scheduled to receive cisplatin were enrolled and evaluated for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was total control (TC) in the overall phase. The key secondary endpoint was complete response (CR), which was assessed in the acute, delayed, and overall phase, respectively. Adverse events were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Eighty-five patients were enrolled from 8 centers in Japan, of which 83 were evaluable for analyses. The percentage of patients who achieved TC during the overall phase was 31.3%. CR was achieved in 61.4%, 84.3%, and 65.1% of patients during the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse event was anorexia. The primary endpoint was below the threshold and we could not find benefit in the dexamethasone-free regimen, but CR during the overall phase was similar to that of the conventional three-drug regimen. This antiemetic regimen without dexamethasone might be an option for patients for whom corticosteroids should not be an active application.

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.

Evaluation of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine as antiemetic prophylaxis for fludarabine and melphalan-based conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available regarding efficacious antiemetic regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In patients aged 60 years or older, allogeneic HSCT is associated with improved survival, but tolerability of the transplant is a significant barrier. Fludarabine and melphalan (Flu-Mel) is a frequently utilized multi-day reduced intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic HSCT. However, the optimal CINV prevention regimen is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel CINV prophylaxis regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT with Flu-Mel compared to a historical control group.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort review of 123 patients who received a Flu-Mel preparative regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022. Fifty-nine patients received high dose ondansetron (HDO) for CINV prevention, while sixty-four patients received a combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine (PFO). The primary outcome was average number of rescue antiemetic doses administered per day. A key secondary outcome was time to first rescue antiemetic.

RESULTS

The median number of antiemetic doses used per day was significantly lower in patients who received PFO compared to HDO (1.94 doses [0.31-3.60] vs 3.31 doses [1.61-4.92]; p = 0.002). In addition, use of PFO significantly prolonged the median time to first rescue antiemetic compared to HDO (41.3 h [24.3-122.7] vs 26.2 h [14.7-48.1]; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine is an effective antiemetic regimen for patients receiving a Flu-Mel-based preparative regimen.

Dexamethasone-Free Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Double-Blind, Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial (CINV POD study)

PURPOSE

The effectiveness of a dexamethasone (DEX)-free regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is not known.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, phase III trial designed to show the noninferiority of a DEX-free regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant [OPF]) compared with the DEX-containing regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and DEX [OPD]). Chemotherapy-naïve patients age 18-80 years receiving single-day HEC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either the OPD regimen or the OPF regimen. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates for vomiting during the overall period (start of chemotherapy to 120 hours). Secondary objectives included CR for vomiting during the acute period (0-24 hours) and delayed period (24-120 hours), CR for nausea, and comparison of toxicities and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-six patients received the study interventions, 174 in the OPD arm and 172 in the OPF arm. The DEX-free OPF arm had significantly higher CR rates for vomiting compared with the DEX-containing OPD arm in acute (94.7% v 85.6%; P < .004), delayed (81.9% v 50.5%; P < .001), and overall (79.6% v 48.8%; P < .001) periods. For nausea, CR rates in the OPF arm were higher in delayed (53.4% v 39.6%; P = .009) and overall (50.5% v 39.1%; P = .031) periods but not in the acute period (77.9% v 81.6%; P = .39). Fatigue (P = .009) and drowsiness (P = .002) were more in the OPF arm in the acute period and insomnia (P < .001) in the OPD arm in the overall period.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that a DEX-free OPF regimen is efficacious and should be considered a standard option for acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis for HEC.

Dexamethasone-sparing regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in older patients (>65 years) fit for cisplatin: A sub-analysis from a phase 3 study

INTRODUCTION

We recently demonstrated the non-inferiority of two dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens with an oral fixed-combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) versus the guideline-recommended DEX use for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Since prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of the DEX-sparing regimens in this subset.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chemo-naive patients aged >65 years treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) were eligible. Patients received NEPA and DEX on day 1 and were randomized to receive either (1) no further DEX (DEX1), (2) oral low-dose DEX (4 mg) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or (3) the guideline-recommended standard DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint of the parent study was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). No significant nausea (NSN; none or mild nausea) and the proportion of patients reporting no impact on daily life (NIDL) which was evaluated by the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire on day 6 (overall combined score > 108), were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Among the 228 patients in the parent study, 107 were > 65 years. Similar CR rates [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were observed in patients over 65 years across treatment groups [DEX1: 75% (59.7-86.8%); DEX3: 80.6% (62.5-92.6%); DEX4: 75% (56.6-88.5%)] as well as versus the total study population. NSN rates were also similar in the older-patients across treatment groups (p = 0.480) but were higher compared with the total population. Similar rates of NIDL (95% CI) were reported in the older-patient subset across treatment groups [DEX1: 61.5% (44.6-76.6%); DEX3: 64.3% (44.1-81.4%); DEX4: 62.1% (42.3-79.3%); p = 1.0] during the overall phase, as well as versus total population. A similar proportion of older patients across treatment groups experienced DEX-related side effects.

DISCUSSION

This analysis shows that older-patients who are fit for cisplatin benefit from a simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX with neither loss in antiemetic efficacy nor the adverse impact on patient daily functioning. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04201769) on 17/12/2019 (retrospectively registered).

Effectiveness of Palonosetron, 1-Day Dexamethasone, and Aprepitant in Patients Undergoing Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, is associated with poor control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether using palonosetron (PALO) as a 5HT3RA provides superior control with CINV than first-generation (1st) 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with a DEX-sparing strategy.

METHODS

Pooled patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, and prospective observational study were analyzed to compare the incidence of CINV between patients administered PALO and 1st 5HT3RA in combination with 1-day DEX and APR.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CINV, pattern of CINV, or severity of nausea by type of 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with DEX-sparing strategy. In both groups, the incidence of nausea gradually increased from day 3, peaked on day 4 or 5, and then declined slowly. The visual analog scale scores in the delayed phase remained high throughout the 7-day observation period.

CONCLUSION

Careful patient selection and symptom monitoring are needed when implementing the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis for patients undergoing CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, additional strategies may be needed to achieve better control of delayed CINV.

Detection of drug safety signal of drug-induced neutropenia and agranulocytosis in all-aged patients using electronic medical records

PURPOSE

We explored the adverse drug reaction signals of drug-induced neutropenia (DIN) and drug-induced agranulocytosis (DIA) in hospitalized patients and evaluated the novelty of these correlations.

METHOD

A two-step method was established to identify the relationship between drugs and DIN or DIA using 5-year electronic medical records (EMRs) obtained from 242 000 patients at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University. First, the drugs suspected to induce DIN or DIA were selected. The associations between suspected drugs and DIN or DIA were evaluated by a retrospective cohort study using unconditional logistic regression analysis and multiple linear regression model.

RESULTS

Twelve suspected drugs (vancomycin, meropenem, voriconazole, acyclovir, ganciclovir, fluconazole, oseltamivir, linezolid, compound borax solution, palonosetron, polyene phosphatidylcholine, and sulfamethoxazole) were associated with DIN, and six suspected drugs (vancomycin, voriconazole, acyclovir, ganciclovir, fluconazole, and oseltamivir) were associated with DIA. The multivariate linear regression model revealed that nine drugs (vancomycin, meropenem, voriconazole, ganciclovir, fluconazole, oseltamivir, compound borax solution, palonosetron, and polyene phosphatidylcholine) and four drugs (vancomycin, voriconazole, ganciclovir, and fluconazole) were found to be associated with DIN and DIA, respectively. While logistic regression analysis revealed that palonosetron and ganciclovir were associated with DIN and DIA, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron and ganciclovir were found to be correlated with drug-induced granulocytopenia. The results of this study provide an early warning of drug safety signals for drug-induced granulocytopenia, facilitating a quick and appropriate response for clinicians.

Comparison of efficacy between palonosetron-midazolam combination and palonosetron alone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing breast surgery and patient controlled analgesia: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study: A CONSORT-compliant study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complaint in patients following general anesthesia. Various antiemetics, including 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, are effective but still have limited efficacy. Therefore, combination therapy is preferable to using a single drug alone in high-risk patients. We performed a comparative study on the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, monotherapy vs palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy for the prevention of PONV.

METHODS

A total of 104 female patients scheduled for breast cancer surgery were enrolled. They were randomly divided into 2 groups, a palonosetron monotherapy group (group P) and palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy group (group PM). Both groups received 0.075 mg palonosetron intravenously after induction of anesthesia. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was applied according to the allocated group. Intravenous (IV)-PCA in group P consisted of fentanyl 20 μg/kg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml); IV-PCA in group PM consisted of fentanyl 20 μg/kg plus midazolam 4 mg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml). Efficacy parameters were collected during 0 to 1, 1 to 6, 6 to 24, and 24 to 48 hours postoperative time intervals. These measures included complete response (defined as no PONV and no rescue anti-emetic use) rate, incidence of PONV, sedation score, rescue antiemetic use, rescue analgesic use, and numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain. The complete response rate during the 0 to 24 hours interval was analyzed as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Although the complete response rate between 0 and 24 hours was higher in group PM (42.3% and 48.1% in group P and PM, respectively), there was no statistically significant difference (P = .55). The complete response rates in other time intervals were not different between the 2 groups as well. The sedation score and NRS score also showed no differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination therapy of palonosetron with midazolam did not lead to a greater reduction in the incidence of PONV than monotherapy in patients undergoing breast surgery and receiving IV-PCA containing fentanyl.

Effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly occurs after chemotherapy, adversely affecting patients' quality of life. Recently, studies have shown inconsistent antiemetic effects of two common 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists, namely, palonosetron and granisetron. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing CINV.

METHODS

Relevant studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was the complete response (CR) rate. Secondary outcomes were headache and constipation events.

RESULTS

In total, 12 randomized controlled trials and five retrospective studies were reviewed. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior to granisetron in all phases in terms of the CR rate (acute phases: odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.54; delayed phases: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13-1.69; and overall phases: OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.17-1.60). Moreover, a non-significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the headache event, but the occurrence of the constipation event was lower in the granisetron group than in the palonosetron group.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron showed a higher protective efficacy in all phases of CINV prevention, especially in delayed phases, and no relatively severe adverse effects were observed.