Comparative review of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Palonosetron for prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting in non-small-cell lung carcinoma patients

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death for both men and women worldwide, and lung cancer also has the highest morbidity and mortality rate among all cancers in China. Chemotherapy (CT) is the most effective and most widely used treatment for lung cancer. Nausea and vomiting are still among the most unpleasant side effects of chemotherapy, especially during highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The standard therapy for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists. Palonosetron is a highly potent second-generation selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with stronger binding affinity for the 5-HT3 receptor. Palonosetron showed a high antiemetic activity in preclinical study and pivotal trails enrolling patients treated with moderately or high antiemetic activity drugs. Aim of the study was to verify the activity and safety of palonosetron in patients affected by non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and treated with chemotherapy. Patients with stage II-IV NSCLC and receiving chemotherapy entered into the trial. Informed written consent was required. Patients were randomized to received palonosetron or ondasetron. A single pretreatment dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenous followed was administered. Nausea and vomiting were evaluated over 7-day period. Also the adverse effects were reported. Adverse events were evaluated according to the NCI-CTC criteria. Eighty-nine patients were enrolled into the study. The complete responses during the acute phase were 95.4 and 93.3%, respectively. The main side effects were headache 4.5%, constipation 15.7%, anxiety 2.3%. Palonosetron is a very active antiemetic drug for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in NSCLC patients received chemotherapy.

Palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: approval and efficacy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient characteristics (female gender, younger age, low alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. This review provides a detailed description of palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist. The chemistry and pharmacology of palonosetron are described, as well as the initial and recent clinical trials. Palonosetron has a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than the first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Palonosetron has been approved for the prevention of acute CINV in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for the prevention of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. In recent studies, compared to the first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone demonstrated better control of delayed CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. There were no clinically relevant adverse reactions reported in the palonosetron clinical trials which were different from the common reactions reported for the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist class. Due to its efficacy in controlling both acute and delayed CINV, palonosetron may be very effective in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Antiemetic control: toward a new standard of care for emetogenic chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone have significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed CINV remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists. Casopitant is another NK-1 receptor antagonist that is under review by the FDA after recent completion of Phase III clinical trials. The introduction of these new agents has generated revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron, aprepitant and casopitant with other antiemetic agents (olanzapine, gabapentin, cannabinoids) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Clinical Predictors of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Adjuvant Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide

Background:

Patients with breast cancer often receive emetogenic anthracycline–based chemotherapy as part of their treatment. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been commonly reported as one of the distressing adverse effects among patients with cancer. Despite the advent of newer antiemetics and better understanding of the CINV pathophysiology, total eradication of CINV has yet to be achieved.

Objective:

To assess the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients who have breast cancer and are receiving adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) bolus chemotherapy, ascertain patients’ risk factors affecting CINV response, and study patient adherence to delayed antiemetics.

Methods:

This was a single-institution, prospective, observational study conducted at an outpatient cancer center in Singapore from December 2006 to December 2007. Clinical events such as CINV were collated using a standardized diary. Use of rescue antiemetics and unscheduled clinic visits due to CINV were documented.

Results:

Of a total of 108 participants, 16 patients were lost to follow-up and 1 provided incomplete information; thus, 91 patients were included in the analysis. Delayed antiemetics were given according to the institution's guideline and only 9 (9.9%) patients received aprepitant. Neither acute nor delayed vomiting was reported by a majority of patients and only 4 (4.4%) experienced grade 3 vomiting. The incidence of severe nausea was highest on day 3 of chemotherapy and affected 14.3% of patients. Anxiety and history of chemotherapy-induced nausea were associated with both acute and delayed nausea, and history of motion sickness was associated with delayed vomiting. Approximately 65% of patients were adherent to their prescribed delayed antiemetics.

Conclusions:

Most of our patients adhered to their antiemetics and tolerated AC chemotherapy reasonably well, without vomiting; yet nausea persisted. To improve CINV control, clinicians must actively communicate with patients to facilitate accurate assessment of risk factors and CINV response and to encourage adherence to delayed antiemetics.

Palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, comparative phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonist that has shown better efficacy than ondansetron and dolasetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, and similar efficacy to ondansetron in preventing CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, stratified, parallel-group, active-comparator trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus granisetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, both of which were administered with dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

Between July 5, 2006, and May 31, 2007, 1143 patients with cancer who were receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ie, cisplatin, or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide combination [AC/EC]) were recruited from 75 institutions in Japan, and randomly assigned to either single-dose palonosetron (0.75 mg), or granisetron (40 microg/kg) 30 min before chemotherapy on day 1, both with dexamethasone (16 mg intravenously) on day 1 followed by additional doses (8 mg intravenously for patients receiving cisplatin or 4 mg orally for patients receiving AC/EC) on days 2 and 3. A non-deterministic minimisation method with a stochastic-biased coin was applied to the randomisation of patients. Covariates known to effect emetic risk, such as sex, age, and type of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, were used as stratification factors of minimisation to ensure balance between the treatment groups. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a complete response (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the acute phase (0-24 h postchemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with granisetron) and the proportion of patients with a complete response during the delayed phase (24-120 h postchemotherapy; superiority comparison with granisetron). The non-inferiority margin was predefined in the study protocol as a 10% difference between groups in the proportion of patients with complete response. The palonosetron dose of 0.75 mg was chosen on the basis of two dose-determining trials in Japanese patients. All patients who received study treatment and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were included in the efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359567.

FINDINGS

1114 patients were included in the efficacy analyses: 555 patients in the palonosetron group and 559 patients in the granisetron group. 418 of 555 patients (75.3%) in the palonosetron group had complete response during the acute phase compared with 410 of 559 patients (73.3%) in the granisetron group (mean difference 2.9% [95% CI -2.70 to 7.27]). During the delayed phase, 315 of 555 patients (56.8%) had complete response in the palonosetron group compared with 249 of 559 patients (44.5%) in the granisetron group (p<0.0001). The main treatment-related adverse events were constipation (97 of 557 patients [17.4%] in the palonosetron group vs 88 of 562 [15.7%] in the granisetron group) and raised concentrations of serum aminotransferases (aspartate aminotransferase: 24 of 557 [4.3%] vs 34 of 562 [6.0%]; alanine aminotransferase: 16 of 557 [2.9%] vs 33 of 562 [5.9%]); no grade 4 main treatment-related adverse events were reported.

INTERPRETATION

When administered with dexamethasone before highly emetogenic chemotherapy, palonosetron exerts efficacy against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting which is non-inferior to that of granisetron in the acute phase and better than that of granisetron in the delayed phase, with a comparable safety profile for the two treatments.

FUNDING

Taiho Pharmaceutical (Tokyo, Japan).

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.

Palonosetron plus dexamethasone effectively prevents acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in pre-treated patients who have failed to respond to a previous antiemetic treatment: comparison between elderly and non-elderly patient response

Aim of the present phase II non-randomized study was to verify whether palonosetron might be able to prevent acute and especially delayed CINV for either HEC or MEC, starting from the second chemotherapy cycle, in patients who had failed to respond to a different antiemetic 5-HT(3) antagonist during the first cycle. Stratification factor was age <65 years vs. > or =65 years of patients included. Forty-seven cancer patients (23 elderly and 24 non-elderly) scheduled to receive HEC or MEC regimens who had experienced CINV grade 3-4 during the first chemotherapy course and for whom the same course of chemotherapy regimen was further scheduled were enrolled. Complete response (CR) and complete control (CC) rates for the acute, delayed and overall phases of CINV were not significantly different between elderly and non-elderly patients. Palonosetron was safe: only grade 1-2 toxicities were observed with a peak of 12.9% for asthenia with no significant difference between elderly and non-elderly patients. In conclusion, single dose palonosetron (250 microg) should be considered a safe and effective second generation 5-HT(3) antagonist in the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by HEC or MEC, irrespective of patients' age.

Postoperative colonic motility after tropisetron and a standardized meal in patients undergoing conventional colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Early postoperative enteral nutrition is advantageous for the recovery of colonic motility but may be limited by abdominal distension, nausea, and vomiting. We aimed to investigate the tolerance of a standardized meal after pretreatment with the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3-receptor antagonist tropisetron and to study the concomitant colonic motility.

METHODS

Colonic motility and tone were recorded on postoperative day 1 to 3 with a combined manometry/barostat recording catheter in 12 patients who underwent open colorectal surgery with an anastomosis in the distal colon or rectum. The study protocol consisted of 30 min of baseline recordings followed by 5 mg of tropisetron intravenously. Then, motility was recorded for another 30 min before patients ingested a standardized meal to trigger the gastrocolonic response. Postprandial motility was recorded for the subsequent 60 min.

RESULTS

The colonic motility index increased after administration of tropisetron on all three postoperative days (day 1: 34+/-11 vs 122+/-48, day 2: 55+/-19 vs 101+/-25, and day 3: 42+/-16 vs 93+/-33 mmHg/min; p<0.05). No further increase of the motility index was observed postprandially. Frequency and amplitude of contractions were virtually unaffected by tropisetron and the meal. Barostat bag volume decreased postprandially in the proximal bag on the third, and in the distal bag on the first and second postoperative day (p<0.05). Patients' condition was unaffected by the standardized meal after tropisetron administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Tropisetron may enhance colonic motility in the early postoperative period; however, the gastrocolonic response was impaired thereafter. High caloric food intake is well tolerated early after surgery after tropisetron pretreatment.

Palonosetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy for germ cell cancer

GOALS OF WORK

The aims of this study were to assess the safety and antiemetic efficacy of multiple-day dosing of palonosetron plus dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for germ cell tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one men undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer received palonosetron 0.25 mg IV once daily 30 min before chemotherapy on days 1, 3, and 5 plus IV dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy on days 1 and 2, and 8 mg PO bid on days 6 and 7 and 4 mg bid on day 8. Safety and efficacy were assessed in 24-h intervals for 9 days. Efficacy endpoints included emesis, intensity of nausea and its interference with patient functioning, and rescue antiemetic use. A subset of patients (n = 11) was studied for electrocardiograph effects and pharmacokinetic evaluation.

MAIN RESULTS

This multiple-day antiemetic regimen was safe, with headache and constipation the most common treatment-related adverse events, mostly mild. Neither adverse events nor electrocardiographic changes appeared to increase in frequency, duration, or intensity over time despite a 1.42-fold systemic accumulation of palonosetron with repeated doses. The majority of patients had no emesis at any time throughout days 1-5 (51%) or days 6-9 (83%), had no moderate-to-severe nausea, and did not require rescue medication. Most patients reported that nausea had no significant effect on daily functioning on days 1-4 (72%) and days 5-9 (85%).

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron on days 1, 3, and 5, along with a regimen of dexamethasone, was safe and well tolerated and effectively controlled both nausea and emesis in patients undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer.

Quality of life for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide and the seventh most common cause of deaths from cancer in women. Recent annual worldwide figures reflect 204,000 new cases of ovarian cancer and 125,000 deaths. Treatment of advanced ovarian cancer involves a combination of surgery and chemotherapy, both of which may impact a woman's physical, social, and emotional well-being. A woman's quality of life (QOL) is affected by disease site, and treatment-specific and patient-specific factors, but other common QOL issues include changes in physical functioning owing to side effects of treatment, psychological distress caused by fear and anxiety of recurrence, sexual dysfunction associated with anatomic and physiologic changes of treatment, and for younger women, loss of childbearing potential. As new diagnostic and treatment strategies for gynecologic malignancies are developed, research efforts should include QOL consequences. Further studies are needed to develop strategies for identifying women at risk for serious QOL disruption so that effective interventions to assist these women can be designed.

Determination of tropisetron in human plasma by high performance liquid chromatographic method with UV detection and its application to a bioequivalence study

A simple and sensitive high performance liquid chromatography method with UV detection was described for the determination of tropisetron in human plasma. The prepared sample solution was injected onto BDS-C(8) reversed column using a mixture of ammonium acetate (100 mM, PH adjusted to 4.3 with glacial acetic acid) and acetonitrile (80:20, v/v) as mobile phase. The wavelength of UV detector was set at 285 nm. No interference from any endogenous substances was observed during the elution of tropisetron and internal standard (ondansetron hydrochloride). The lower limit of quantification was evaluated to be 1 ng/mL. The method was used in a randomized crossover bioequivalence study of two different tropisetron preparations in 20 healthy volunteers.

Palonosetron: a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient risk factors (female gender, younger age, alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3 receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a clinical problem. A new agent, palonosetron, has recently been approved for the prevention of acute CINV in patients receiving either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for the prevention of delayed CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. In a single dosing study, palonosetron was highly effective in controlling CINV compared with a single dose of dolasetron or ondansetron in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron in combination with dexamethasone demonstrated control of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron appeared to be as effective in subsequent courses of chemotherapy compared with the initial course of chemotherapy. There were no clinically relevant differences seen among palonosetron, ondansetron or dolasetron in laboratory, electrocardiographic or vital-sign changes, and adverse reactions reported in the clinical trials were the most common reactions reported for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist class. Recent studies using palonosetron-based anti-emetic combinations in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical setting of multiple-day chemotherapy, have been reported. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron with current and other new agents and in other clinical settings, such as bone marrow transplantation and radiation therapy.

New drugs for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: focus on palonosetron

Significant progress has been made in the development of effective, convenient and well-tolerated means to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Nevertheless, a substantial minority of patients continue to have suboptimal antiemetic control, and additional treatment approaches are needed. One avenue of investigation being pursued involves the evaluation of a new 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonist (palonosetron) that differs from available serotonin antagonists in its markedly longer half-life (40 h) and greater binding affinity for the type-3 serotonin receptor. Analysis of available clinical data demonstrates that palonosetron is an active and well-tolerated new 5-HT(3) antagonist. Moreover, single-dose palonosetron, prior to chemotherapy, has demonstrated improved control of CINV through the full period of emetic risk with a single dose. Palonosetron is recommended as the preferred treatment of acute and delayed emesis prevention with moderate emetic risk chemotherapy in the most recently published evidence-based antiemesis consensus guidelines. Further studies incorporating dexamethasone to 5-HT(3) antagonists will be necessary to determine the relative efficacy of palonosetron compared with available agents. These trials could open a new era in the treatment of CINV.

A phase III, double-blind, randomized trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

This pivotal phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized to a single intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg or 0.75 mg, or ondansetron 32 mg prior to HEC. Dexamethasone pre-treatment (with stratification) was used at investigator discretion. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with complete response (CR) during the first 24 h post-chemotherapy (acute phase).

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 667), palonosetron 0.25 mg and 0.75 mg were at least as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV (59.2%, 65.5%, and 57.0% CR rates, respectively); CR rates were slightly higher with palonosetron than ondansetron during the delayed (24-120 h) and overall (0-120 h) phases. Two thirds of patients (n = 447) received concomitant dexamethasone. Patients pre-treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg plus dexamethasone had significantly higher CR rates than those receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the delayed (42.0% versus 28.6%) and overall (40.7% versus 25.2%) phases. Palonosetron and ondansetron were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose palonosetron was as effective as ondansetron in preventing acute CINV following HEC, and with dexamethasone pre-treatment, its effectiveness was significantly increased over ondansetron throughout the 5-day post-chemotherapy period.

Emerging drugs for chemotherapy-induced emesis

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles and patient risk factors (female gender, younger age, no alcohol consumption, history of motion sickness) are the major risk factors for CINV. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, but delayed nausea and vomiting remains a significant clinical problem. Two new agents, palonosetron and aprepitant, have recently been approved for the prevention of both acute and delayed CINV. Palonosetron is a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life and a higher binding affinity than first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Aprepitant is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1) antagonists. There are a number of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and NK-1 receptor antagonists currently in Phase II and III clinical trials. Revised antiemetic guidelines for the prevention of CINV are reviewed. Future studies may consider the use of palonosetron and aprepitant with current and other new agents (olanzapine, gabapentin) in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well as in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Polysaccharides from the root of Angelica sinensis protect bone marrow and gastrointestinal tissues against the cytotoxicity of cyclophosphamide in mice

Cyclophosphamide (CY) is a cytostatic agent that produces systemic toxicity especially on cells with high proliferative capacity, while polysaccharides from Angelica sinensis (AP) have been shown to increase the turnover of gastrointestinal mucosal and hemopoietic stem cells. It is not known whether AP has an effect on CY-induced cytotoxicity on bone marrow and gastrointestinal tract. In this study, we assessed the protective actions of AP on CY-induced leukopenia and proliferative arrest in the gastroduodenal mucosa in mice. Subcutaneous injection of CY (200 mg/kg) provoked dramatic decrease in white blood cell (WBC) count and number of blood vessels and proliferating cells in both the gastric and duodenal mucosae. Subcutaneous injection of AP significantly promoted the recovery from leukopenia and increased number of blood vessels and proliferating cells in both the gastric and duodenal tissues. Western blotting revealed that CY significantly down-regulated the protein expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), c-Myc and ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) in gastric mucosae but had no effect on epidermal growth factor (EGF) expression. AP also reversed the dampening effect of CY on VEGF expression in the gastric mucosa. These data suggest that AP is a cytoprotective agent which can protect against the cytotoxicity of CY on hematopoietic and gastrointestinal tissues when the polysaccharide is co-administered with CY in cancer patients during treatment regimen.

Action of ondansetron and CP-99,994 on cisplatin-induced emesis and locomotor activity in Suncus murinus (house musk shrew)

Species possessing the emetic reflex are useful for anti-emetic screening. Assessing the potential of novel drugs to simultaneously reduce nausea and emesis in animals is problematic, however. In the present studies, therefore, the behavioural repertoire of Suncus murinus in response to the emetic chemotherapeutic drug cisplatin was studied in an attempt to characterize behaviours (including spontaneous locomotor activity) that may be relevant to nausea status. Cisplatin at 30 mg/kg, intraperitoneal, induced a robust emetic response but did not induce novel behaviour and failed to affect spontaneous locomotor activity. Ondansetron at 3 mg/kg, subcutaneous, and CP-99,994 at 10 mg/kg, subcutaneous, reduced emesis by 98% and 40.7%, respectively. Both ondansetron and CP-99,994, however, were inactive in modifying spontaneous locomotor activity in either cisplatin-treated or normal animals. Results are discussed in relation to other animal models of nausea and emesis.

Pharmacokinetic–Pharmacodynamic Modeling of the Hydroxy Lerisetron Metabolite L6-OH in Rats: An Integrated Parent–Metabolite Model

PURPOSE

The twofold aim of this study was to characterize in vivo in rats the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of L6-OH, a metabolite of lerisetron with in vitro pharmacological activity, and evaluate the extent to which L6-OH contributes to the overall effect.

METHODS

The PK of L6-OH was determined directly postmetabolite i.v. dose (PK-1), and also simultaneously for L (lerisetron concentration) and for generated L6-OH after lerisetron dose (200 microg kg(-1), i.v.), using Nonlinear Mixed Effects Modeling with an integrated parent-metabolite PK model (PK-2). Surrogate effect was measured by inhibition of serotonin-induced bradycardia. Protein binding was assayed via ultrafiltration and all quantification was performed via liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

L6-OH showed elevated plasma and renal clearances, and volume of distribution (PK-1). The in vivo potency (PD) of L6-OH was high (EC(50) = 0.098 ng mL(-1) and EC(50unbound) = 0.040 ng mL(-1)). Total clearance for L (PK-2) in the presence of generated L6-OH (CL(L) = CL(-->L6-OH) + CL(n)) was 0.0139 L min(-1). Most of this clearance was L6-OH formation (F(c) = 99.6%), but only an 8.6% fraction of L6-OH was released into the bloodstream. The remainder undergoes biliar and fecal elimination. The parameters estimated from PK-2 were used to predict concentrations of L6-OH (Cp(L6)) generated after a lerisetron therapeutic dose (10 microg kg(-1)) in the rat. These concentrations are needed for the PD model and are below the quantification limit. Cp(L6max) was less than the EC(50) of L6-OH.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that after lerisetron administration, L6-OH is extensively formed in the rat but it is quickly eliminated; therefore, besides being equipotent with the parent drug, the L6-OH metabolite does not influence the effect of lerisetron.

Alprazolam Significantly Improves the Efficacy of Granisetron in the Prophylaxis of Emesis Secondary to Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy in Patients with Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Alprazolam, a newer benzodiazepine, may be useful in the control of nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Nineteen operable breast cancer patients were included in this randomized prospective crossover open-label trial. Patients received either granisetron (G) alone, or in combination with alprazolam (A). Group A patients received G+A first and then crossed over to G-alone after the 2nd or 3rd cycle. Group B patients received the reverse order. Eighty-four cycles were evaluated.

RESULTS

In group A, complete remission (CR) plus major response (MR) was higher (93.9%) with G+A than with G-alone (83.3%; p = 0.0001) in the first 24-hour period. In group B, CR plus MR was higher in G+A cycles (100%) than in G-alone cycles (85.7%; p = 0.035) in the 24-hour period and in the 25- to 129-hour period (92 vs. 90.5%, respectively; p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Alprazolam increases the efficacy of granisetron in patients with breast cancer treated with an anthracycline-containing regimen.

Evaluation of safety and pharmacokinetics of consecutive multiple-day dosing of palonosetron in healthy subjects

This study evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics of consecutive multiple-day dosing of palonosetron. Sixteen healthy subjects received an intravenous bolus dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg (n = 12) or placebo (n = 4) daily for 3 consecutive days. Safety was evaluated throughout the study. Serial plasma samples were collected on days 1 and 3 for pharmacokinetic determinations. Three days of dosing with palonosetron 0.25 mg was safe and well tolerated. There were no clinically significant changes from baseline in laboratory values, vital signs, physical examinations, or electrocardiogram intervals. Plasma palonosetron concentrations declined in a biphasic manner, measurable up to 168 hours after dosing on day 3. Mean terminal phase elimination half-life after day 3 dosing was 42.8 hours. The 2.1-fold accumulation of palonosetron in plasma following 3 daily doses was predictable based on elimination half-life of approximately 40 hours, and the maximum plasma concentration remained below the maximum plasma concentration previously observed after a single, well-tolerated 0.75 mg intravenous bolus dose of palonosetron.

Optimising antiemetic therapy: what are the problems and how can they be overcome?

BACKGROUND

Management of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced emesis has improved significantly following the introduction of the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists. Prophylactic use of these agents is recommended for the prevention of both chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, given with a corticosteroid. Despite these advances, nausea and vomiting remain among the most feared and debilitating adverse effects of cytotoxic therapy. The shift towards a more elderly population of patients with cancer presents additional considerations for supportive care, with an emphasis on achieving control of nausea and vomiting, whilst minimising toxicity and avoiding drug-drug interactions. This review presents some of the key issues for consideration in optimising antiemetic therapy. The PubMed search engine was used to search for relevant literature (up to December 2004) and relevant international congress materials collected during 2003 and 2004.

SCOPE

While the early stages of nausea and vomiting are 5-HT-mediated, identification of a role for substance P in late emesis has led to the development of the NK1-receptor antagonist, aprepitant. As a new agent, the clinical profile of aprepitant is still being explored, including its interaction with concomitant medications. Patients who achieve good control of acute and late-acute nausea and vomiting have a reduced risk of experiencing delayed onset symptoms, emphasising the importance of prophylactic management with effective agents. Although the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists are widely considered to have equivalent efficacy, they vary in half-life and the nature of antagonism at receptors. Their metabolic profiles also differ, with cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolism affecting their propensity for drug-drug interactions. Several sets of guidelines are available that outline recommendations for selection and use of antiemetic therapy. However, under-use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists has been reported in both the radiotherapy and chemotherapy settings, and some commonly used doses may be suboptimal.

CONCLUSION

In optimising antiemetic therapy, wider implementation of guidelines is desirable, as is consideration of each patient's individual needs. Safety and tolerability of supportive care medications should be a key consideration, and cardiovascular warnings and the possibility of drug-drug interactions should be given sufficient consideration, particularly in view of the older age of the population with cancer.

Granisetron attenuates exercise-induced conditioned taste aversion in the rat

A conditioned taste aversion (CTA) paradigm was used in the present study to investigate whether CTA produced by exercise could be attenuated by the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist granisetron. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly allocated to one of four groups (Ns=6) and were exposed to salty (0.128 M sodium chloride) or sour (0.00138M citric acid) solutions. Subjects were injected with either saline solution (1.0 ml, 0.9%) or granisetron (0.5mg/kg, IP) and were exposed to 30 min of forced wheel running exercise (70 revolutions/30min) 10 min after injection. Exercise induced CTA to both the salty (3.7 ml intake) and sour-flaroured (3.1ml intake) solutions as compared with no exercise (intake 14.0 and 13.7 ml), and administration of granisetron significantly attenuated the exercise-induced CTA to the salty- and sour-flavoured solutions.

Granisetron vs ondansetron for prevention of nausea and vomiting in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients: results of a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial

The serotonin type-3 (5-HT3) antagonists represent a significant advance in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting (N/V) from highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We sought to determine if any differences in efficacy or adverse effects exist between two such agents, ondansetron and granisetron, during conditioning therapy for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously every 8 h or granisetron 10 microg/kg intravenously daily. Additionally, all patients received scheduled dexamethasone and lorazepam. Prophylaxis was continued until 24 h after completion of chemotherapy. Nausea and distress were measured subjectively with visual analog scales and emetic episodes were quantified. Of the 110 randomized patients, 96 were evaluable for efficacy and safety. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the ondansetron- and granisetron-treated patients, evaluated by comparing the degree of nausea and distress, number of emetic episodes and overall control of emesis. The adverse effects were also comparable and no patients were removed from study because of severe toxicities. This trial demonstrates that ondansetron and granisetron are equally effective at preventing acute N/V associated with conditioning therapy frequently used for HSCT. The agent of choice should be based on drug acquisition cost or preference.

Drug Insight: new antiemetics in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting remain among the most feared side effects of chemotherapy for cancer patients. Significant progress has been made in the last 15 years in developing more effective and better-tolerated measures to minimize chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). During the 1990s, the selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists were first introduced for the treatment of CINV, and resulted in more effective and better tolerated treatment of CINV. Despite recent progress, however, a significant number of patients still develop CINV, particularly during the 2-5 day period (delayed emesis) following chemotherapy. There is evidence that this may be an underappreciated problem on the part of some caregivers. Recently, two new antiemetics, aprepitant, the first member of the neurokinin-1 antagonists, and palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist, received regulatory approval in the US. Both represent useful additions to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of CINV.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Taiwan: physicians' and nurses' estimation vs. patients' reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

The major objective of the study was to determine the incidence and prevalence of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving chemotherapy and assess the accuracy with which medical providers perceive the incidence of CINV in their practice.

METHODS

Specialists, residents and nurses (medical providers) from two cancer centers in Taiwan estimated the incidence of acute and delayed CINV. Chemotherapy-naive patients from the same centers then completed a 5-day nausea and vomiting diary following highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC) to determine the actual incidence of acute and delayed CINV. Daily nausea ratings were recorded on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). No nausea was defined as a nausea VAS score <5 mm. Vomiting episodes were also recorded. Nausea and vomiting were defined as acute and delayed based on whether they occurred during the first 24 h after chemotherapy, or during days 2-5 after chemotherapy, respectively.

RESULTS

In the two oncology centers, 37 medical providers (13 specialists, 4 residents, 20 nurses) and 107 patients were enrolled. The mean patient age was 49.2 years with 76% female and 74% having breast cancer. Of the 107 patients, 39% received HEC and 61% received MEC, and 77% received a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and 94% received dexamethasone. There were no significant differences between patients with acute CINV and delayed CINV in terms of demographics, chemotherapy treatment or antiemetic treatment. The proportion of patients without alcohol use was significantly higher among patients with delayed CINV than among those with non-delayed CINV. Good control of CINV during the acute period correlated with the control of delayed emesis. There were no significant differences between specialists', residents', and nurses' estimations of the incidence rates of CINV. For HEC given to chemotherapy-naïve patients, the medical providers estimated acute CINV to be 44/41% and delayed CINV to be 61/53%, respectively. However, patient diaries revealed acute CINV to be 43/21% and delayed CINV to be 64/60%, respectively. For MEC given to chemotherapy-naive patients, medical providers estimated acute CINV to be 39/36% and delayed CINV to be 44/39%, respectively. However, patient diaries revealed acute CINV to be 55/18% and delayed CINV to be 74/55%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical providers significantly overestimated the incidence of acute vomiting by 20% and 18% in HEC and MEC patients, respectively. While they correctly estimated the rate of delayed vomiting in HEC patients, they underestimated it by 16% in MEC patients. With respect to nausea, medical providers correctly estimated rates of both acute and delayed nausea in HEC patients, but significantly underestimated rates of acute and delayed nausea by 16% and 30%, respectively, in MEC patients.

Nausea: the neglected symptom?

Advances in antiemetic therapy over the past decade have undoubtedly eased the burden of radiotherapy- and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Despite this, these distressing side-effects of cancer therapy are still experienced by some patients. Moreover, nausea has both a higher incidence and a greater effect on patient quality of life than vomiting. The impact of nausea may therefore warrant more attention than perhaps it has received previously, and there is undoubtedly room for improvement regarding its treatment. Recognizing and treating nausea is complicated by the fact that it can only be measured subjectively by the patient rather than objectively by clinical staff. However, various patient-centred strategies may be employed by nurses to ensure self-reporting of the occurrence and impact of nausea. Nurses may also be best placed to identify patient-related prognostic factors in order to determine the risk of nausea. Antiemetic guidelines recommend the use of a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist for the control of emesis with moderate and highly emetogenic cancer therapy. Although guidelines do not distinguish between the available agents, pharmacological differences do exist, and it is necessary to consider this when tailoring regimens to individual patients. As with any therapy, less complicated dosing regimens are likely to improve compliance, an issue that may be particularly pertinent in nauseated patients who are unable to ingest multiple doses. Furthermore, the focus of antiemetic therapy should be on prevention, as the presence and severity of acute symptoms have been linked to occurrence of symptoms in the delayed phase and the likelihood of anticipatory nausea and vomiting with further treatment cycles. This review aims to assess the potentially neglected symptom of nausea and focuses on recognizing and controlling this side-effect of cancer therapy.

Economic Evaluation of a New Antiemetic Drug ??? Palonosetron versus Ondansetron

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify, measure and evaluate expected costs of innovative palonosetron-based antiemetic therapy versus ondansetron-based treatment, the ultimate aim being to measure the drug price ratio (DPR) of the two pharmacological treatments in five different European countries.

METHODS

A decision model compared two antiemetic treatments - palonosetron and ondansetron - in terms of expected costs of emesis management from a hospital perspective. The model was compiled for 374 patients. The clinical superiority of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed emesis, measured in terms of: (i) complete response rates, (ii) number of emetic episodes, and (iii) administration of rescue medication, was derived from a previously published clinical trial. The cost data were gathered through economic questionnaires distributed in 11 European hospital centres. The expected costs of emesis management with palonosetron and ondansetron at ondansetron prices were used to calculate the DPR for palonosetron in each of the five European countries.

RESULTS

In the baseline analysis, DPR varied from 1.55 (in Russia) to 2.60 (in the UK). The sensitivity analysis of the unit costs of emetic episodes and rescue medication identified a range from 1.39 (in Germany) to 4.09 (in Russia). Even in the least favourable clinical scenario, palonosetron was a preferred antiemetic strategy with a DPR >1 in all five countries.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first economic evaluation analysis of palonosetron. The results demonstrate that palonosetron, because of its superior clinical efficacy in controlling emesis, could have a favourable DPR when compared with ondansetron in all five countries considered and still offer lower or equal net treatment costs for the hospital.

Open-label, randomized comparison of the efficacy of intravenous dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron in the prevention of acute and delayed cisplatin-induced emesis in cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare the antiemetic efficacy and tolerability of intravenous dolasetron mesylate and ondansetron in the prevention of acute and delayed emesis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From April 2002 through October 2002, a total of 112 patients receiving cisplatin- based combination chemotherapy were randomized to receive a single i.v. dose of dolasetron 100 mg or ondansetron 8 mg, 30 minutes before the initiation of chemotherapy. In the ondansetron group, two additional doses of ondansetron 8 mg were given at intervals of 2 to 4 hours. To prevent delayed emesis, dolasetron 200 mg p.o. daily or ondansetron 8 mg p.o. bid was administered from the 2(nd) days to a maximum of 5 days. The primary end point was the proportion of patients that experienced no emetic episodes and required no rescue medication (complete response, CR) during the 24 hours (acute period) and during Day 2 to Day 5+/-2 days (delayed period), after chemotherapy. The secondary end points included the incidence and severity of emesis.

RESULTS

105 patients were evaluable for efficacy. CR rates during the acute period were 36.0% for a single dose of dolasetron 100 mg, and 43.6% for three doses of ondansetron 8 mg. CR rates during the delayed period were 8.0% and 10.9%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the efficacy between the two groups. Adverse effects were mostly mild to moderate and not related to study medication.

CONCLUSIONS

A single i.v. dose of dolasetron 100 mg is as effective as three i.v. doses of ondansetron 8 mg in preventing acute and delayed emesis after cisplatin-based chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile.

Granisetron: An Update on its Clinical Use in the Management of Nausea and Vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are typical side effects of cytotoxic therapy and some surgical procedures. These symptoms can represent a major therapeutic challenge and, if inadequately controlled by antiemetic treatment, will result in increased mortality, morbidity, and health care costs. However, the management of nausea and vomiting has improved greatly in recent years following the introduction of the 5-HT3-receptor antagonists, known as 'setrons.' In light of recent developments in antiemetic care, including the approval of the first neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist aprepitant (Emend; Merck and Company, Inc.; West Point, PA) and a new 5-HT3 receptor antagonist palonosetron (Aloxi; MGI Pharma; Minneapolis, MN), this article provides an update on the clinical experience gained with the 5-HT3-receptor antagonist granisetron (Kytril; Roche Laboratories, Inc.; Nutley, NJ) for the management of chemotherapy-induced, radiation-induced, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and also reviews its use in special patient populations. Granisetron is a potent and highly selective 5-HT3-receptor antagonist that has little or no affinity for other receptors, a characteristic that is thought to underlie the favorable side-effect and safety profiles of this agent. Extensive clinical trial data have shown granisetron to be an effective and well-tolerated agent for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the oncology and surgical settings. Granisetron has also been shown to be effective and well tolerated in special populations, such as patients refractory to antiemetic treatment, patients with hepatic or renal impairment, and children. Data also suggest that its safety profile and minimal potential for drug-drug interactions would make it an antiemetic agent of choice for elderly cancer patients.

Pharmacokinetics, metabolism and excretion of intravenous [l4C]-palonosetron in healthy human volunteers

Palonosetron (Aloxi(R), Onicit(R)) is a potent, single stereoisomeric 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist developed to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The pharmacokinetics and metabolic disposition of a single intravenous [(14)C]-palonosetron (10 microg/kg, 0.8 microCi/kg) bolus dose were evaluated in six healthy volunteers (three males, three females) using serial blood, plasma, urine and fecal samples obtained over 10 days. The safety, tolerability and cardiac effects were assessed. Radiolabeled metabolic characterization revealed that unchanged palonosetron accounted for 71.9% of the total radioactivity in plasma over 96 h, with an extensive distribution volume (8.34 l/kg) and mean plasma elimination half-life of 37 h. Approximately 83% of the dose was recovered in urine ( approximately 40% as unchanged drug, with 50% metabolized; M9 and M4 were the major metabolites) and 3.4% in feces. Hydrolysis of urine samples suggests that the metabolites are not beta-glucuronide or sulfate conjugates of the parent drug or metabolites. The blood to plasma concentration ratio of the total radioactivity was 1.2, on average, indicating little selective partitioning in erythrocytes. Palonosetron was generally well tolerated; headache was the most frequently reported adverse event. Electrocardiograms and 72 h Holter monitoring revealed no clinically significant changes. Palonosetron circulates in plasma mainly as the parent drug. Renal elimination is the primary excretion route, with parent drug and metabolites M9 and M4 accounting for the majority of palonosetron disposition. These results indicate that both renal and hepatic routes are involved in the elimination of palonosetron from the body.

New treatment options for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Significant progress has been made in the development of effective, convenient, and well-tolerated means to prevent nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy (CINV). Nevertheless, a substantial minority of patients continues to have suboptimal antiemetic control, and additional treatment approaches are needed. One avenue of investigation being pursued involves the evaluation of a new 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist (palonosetron) that differs from available serotonin antagonists in its markedly longer half-life (40 h) and greater binding affinity for the type-three serotonin receptor. Analysis of available clinical data demonstrates that palonosetron is an active and well tolerated new 5-HT(3) antagonist. Additional studies incorporating dexamethasone and repetitive-day conventional 5-HT(3) antagonist dosing will be necessary to definitively determine the relative efficacy of palonosetron compared to available agents. Another very promising area that moves beyond serotonin focuses on Substance P as a therapeutic target. Substance P is a tachykinin found in neurons in the brainstem. It is the preferred ligand for the neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor. Preclinical studies with selective NK-1 antagonists have demonstrated promising antiemetic activity. Subsequent clinical trials with selective NK-1 antagonists for the prevention of CINV have validated the preclinical promise demonstrated with these agents. One agent in this new therapeutic class (aprepitant) recently received regulatory approval in the United States for use in combination with a 5-HT(3) antagonist and dexamethasone, defining a new standard of care for highly-emetogenic chemotherapy.

Granisetron vs dolasetron for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in high and moderately high emetogenic chemotherapy: an open-label pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Comparative studies examining the use of oral serotonin type 3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists for the management of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are limited. Therefore, we performed an experiential open-label pilot study at Stony Brook Hospital to allow clinicians to make informed formulary decisions at our institution and to stimulate further study. Specifically, the objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of oral granisetron versus oral dolasetron for prophylaxis of acute CINV.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was conducted during the period of 1 February 2001 to 31 March 2001. Patients (n = 26) with lymphoma or malignancies of the lungs, larynx, or uterus undergoing moderately high and highly emetogenic chemotherapy were studied. Patients admitted during February (n = 13) were administered a single oral dose of 100 mg of dolasetron; those admitted in March (n = 13) received a single oral dose of 2mg of granisetron. All patients were administered intravenous dexamethasone 20 mg before the initiation of chemotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients were monitored for at least 24 h by clinicians. The data recorded for each patient included age, sex, the number of episodes of nausea and emesis, the intensity of nausea (when applicable), and the number of doses of rescue antiemetic medication administered (when applicable).

RESULTS

Overall, granisetron provided significantly greater control of acute CINV than dolasetron. More patients treated with granisetron experienced total control of nausea and vomiting (69.2 vs 23.1%, p < 0.05). Fewer granisetron-treated patients experienced emesis (7.7 vs 53.8%, p < 0.05) and nausea (30.8 vs 76.9%, p < 0.05). Of those patients who experienced nausea, intensity was significantly less with granisetron than with dolasetron (p < 0.05). Consequently, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with dolasetron required a rescue antiemetic and significantly more doses of rescue antiemetics (both p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that oral granisetron may demonstrate improved CINV outcomes compared with oral dolasetron in patients undergoing moderately high and highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Quality of life in patients receiving treatment for gynecologic malignancies: Special considerations for patient care

Advances in the treatment of gynecologic cancer have extended the duration of survival of many patients. However, these patients frequently experience a variety of treatment- and disease-related side effects that diminish their quality of life (QOL) during and after treatment; among these are pain, nausea and vomiting, anemia, fatigue, peripheral neuropathy, emotional distress, and sexual dysfunction. Given the gains in survival time, patient care is being expanded to include enhancement or preservation of QOL in addition to early diagnosis and disease treatment, thus treating the whole person. In parallel with this evolution in cancer care, supportive measures are being increasingly recognized as crucial to effective patient management. This paper reviews some of the potential causes of diminished QOL in gynecologic cancer patients and basic treatment strategies for their control, with a focus on short-term QOL issues. It is important that clinicians monitor QOL during the course of the disease and its treatment, utilize procedures and therapeutic agents that take patient preferences and QOL into account, and proactively prevent and treat relevant symptoms.

Palonosetron improves prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a double-blind randomized phase III trial comparing single doses of palonosetron with ondansetron

BACKGROUND

Although all first-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists demonstrate efficacy in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), effective prevention of delayed CINV has not yet been achieved. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of palonosetron, a novel, second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, with ondansetron.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, stratified, phase III study, 570 adult cancer patients were randomized to receive a single i.v. dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg, palonosetron 0.75 mg or ondansetron 32 mg, each administered 30 min before initiation of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with no emetic episodes and no rescue medication [complete response (CR)] during the 24 h after chemotherapy administration (acute period). Secondary end points included efficacy in treatment of delayed CINV (</=5 days post-chemotherapy) and overall tolerability.

RESULTS

563 patients were evaluable for efficacy. CR rates were significantly higher (P <0.01) for palonosetron 0.25 mg than ondansetron during the acute (0-24 h) (81.0% versus 68.6%, respectively), delayed (24-120 h) (74.1% versus 55.1%) and overall (0-120 h) (69.3% versus 50.3%) periods. CR rates achieved with palonosetron 0.75 mg were numerically higher but not statistically different from ondansetron during all three time intervals. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

A single i.v. dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg was significantly superior to i.v. ondansetron 32 mg in the prevention of acute and delayed CINV.

Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of palonosetron in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy:a dose-ranging clinical study

BACKGROUND

Although currently available 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor (5-HT3) antagonists are effective, not all patients receiving these agents achieve adequate control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Palonosetron, a potent and highly selective 5-HT3 antagonist with a strong affinity for 5-HT3 and a prolonged plasma elimination half-life, may provide a longer duration of action than other approved agents.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and sixty-one patients were randomly assigned to receive a single intravenous bolus dose of palonosetron (0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30 or 90 microg/kg) before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy, with no pretreatment with corticosteroids.

RESULTS

The four highest doses of palonosetron were similarly effective during the first 24 h, producing clearly higher complete response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue medication) rates in the 3, 10, 30 and 90 microg/kg groups (46%, 40%, 50% and 46%, respectively) than in the 0.3-1 microg/kg group (24%) of evaluable patients (n = 148). The 3 microg/kg dose was identified as the lowest effective dose. A single dose of palonosetron showed prolonged efficacy in preventing delayed emesis, with approximately one-third of patients who received palonosetron 10 or 30 microg/kg maintaining a CR throughout the 7-day period following chemotherapy administration. Dose-proportional increases in pharmacokinetic parameters and a long plasma half-life (43.7-128 h) were observed. Palonosetron was well-tolerated, with no dose-response effect evident for the incidence or intensity of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron is an effective and well-tolerated agent for the prevention of CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy, with 3 and 10 microg/kg identified as the lowest effective palonosetron doses.

Improved prevention of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with palonosetron, a pharmacologically novel 5-HT3 receptor antagonist: results of a phase III, single-dose trial versus dolasetron

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron, a highly selective and potent 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist with a strong binding affinity and a long plasma elimination half-life (approximately 40 hours), has shown efficacy in Phase II trials in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The current Phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

METHODS

In the current study, 592 patients were randomized to receive a single, intravenous dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg, palonosetron 0.75 mg, or dolasetron 100 mg, 30 minutes before receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included assessment of prevention of delayed emesis (2-5 days postchemotherapy).

RESULTS

In the current study, 569 patients received study medication and were included in the intent-to-treat efficacy analyses. CR rates during the first 24 hours were 63.0% for palonosetron 0.25 mg, 57.1% for palonosetron 0.75 mg, and 52.9% for dolasetron 100 mg. CR rates during the delayed period (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) were superior for palonosetron compared with dolasetron. Adverse events (AEs) were mostly mild to moderate and not related to study medication, with similar incidences among groups. There were no serious drug-related AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of palonosetron is as effective as a single dose of dolasetron in preventing acute CINV and superior to dolasetron in preventing delayed CINV after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile for all treatment groups.

Symptom control

Symptom control has become increasingly recognized as an important goal in patient care. In this article, advances in symptom assessment, and various definitions of symptom improvement are reviewed. Theoretical concepts underlying symptom control and clinically significant change are presented, as well as the role of symptom control as an endpoint in clinical trials. Symptom control is then surveyed in two broad categories for selected symptoms. The first area is therapy related symptoms, secondary to chemotherapy, radiation, hormonal therapy, and surgery. Symptoms reviewed include chemotherapy related mucositis, emesis, fatigue; hot flashes; and radiation related dermatitis, xerostomia, and mucositis. The second area is palliative oncologic approaches to disease-related symptoms. Results in palliative chemotherapy, palliative radiation therapy, cancer pain, and lack of appetite are summarized. Areas requiring further research are noted. Findings are presented in both a clinical and research context to help guide the reader with interpreting symptom control studies.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: the importance of acute antiemetic control

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most feared side effects of cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can be broadly categorized as acute (occurring within 24 hours of therapy), delayed (persisting for 6-7 days after therapy), or anticipatory (occurring prior to chemotherapy administration). Breakthrough and refractory nausea and vomiting describe the symptoms of uncontrolled emesis. Evidence suggests that good control of nausea and vomiting during the acute period correlates with the control of delayed emesis. Conversely, protection failure during the first 24 hours has a high predictive value for delayed emesis in the same cycle. The 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists, regarded as the 'gold standard' in antiemetic therapy, are the first-line treatment for moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens in adults and children. Evidence suggests that the 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists administered in combination with corticosteroids afford the best protection from symptoms of acute emesis and, by extrapolation, the most effective prevention of delayed emesis. Antiemetic therapeutic guidelines stress that the goal of therapy is to prevent cytostatic-induced nausea and vomiting. Therefore, the prophylactic use of the most effective antiemetic regimen-taking into consideration the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and individual patient characteristics-must be adhered to in order to prevent acute, delayed, and anticipatory nausea and vomiting.

Electrocardiographic and cardiovascular effects of the 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonists

OBJECTIVE

To review the electrocardiographic (ECG) and cardiovascular effects of 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists preclinically, in healthy volunteers, and in patients undergoing chemotherapy or surgery.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was performed of clinical trials and preclinical data published between 1963 and December 2002 assessing the ECG and cardiovascular effects of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, supplemented with reviews and secondary sources.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All of the articles identified were evaluated and all information deemed relevant was included in this review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

There are no clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety among the available 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting. As a class, they have well-defined electrophysiologic activity. Changes in ECG parameters (PR, QRS, QT, QTc, JT intervals) are small, reversible, clinically insignificant, and independent of the patient population studied, and patients are asymptomatic during these changes. ECG changes are most prominent 1-2 hours after a dose of dolasetron, ondansetron, and granisetron and return to baseline within 24 hours. Clinically important adverse cardiovascular events associated with these changes are rare. No serious cardiac events (including torsade de pointes) arising from ECG interval changes have been attributed to 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist use.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical data demonstrate that ECG interval changes are a class effect of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. Theoretical concern regarding cardiovascular adverse events with these agents is not supported by clinical experience. The significant benefits of these agents outweigh the theoretical small risk of meaningful cardiovascular events.