Electrocardiographic findings of palonosetron in cancer patients

Netupitant/palonosetron without dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting in patients with multiple myeloma receiving high-dose melphalan for autologous stem cell transplantation: a single-center experience

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent adverse events compromising quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, CINV prophylaxis is still lacking uniformity for high-dose melphalan (HDM), which is used to condition patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is administered with dexamethasone (DEXA) for CINV prevention in several chemotherapy regimens. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of NEPA, without DEXA, in preventing CINV in 106 adult patients with MM receiving HDM and ASCT. All patients had antiemetic prophylaxis with multiple doses of NEPA 1 h before the start of conditioning and after 72 h and 120 h. A complete response (CR) was observed in 99 (93%) patients at 120 h (overall phase). The percentage of patients with complete control was 93%. The CR rate during the acute phase was 94% (n = 100). During the delayed phase, the CR rate was 95% (n = 101). Grade 1 nausea and vomiting were experienced by 82% and 12% of the patients, respectively. Grade 2 nausea was reported in 18% and vomiting in 10% of patients. Our results showed, for the first time, that NEPA, without DEXA, was a well-tolerated and effective antiemetic option for MM patients receiving HDM followed by ASCT.

Fixed Combination Antiemetic: A Literature Review on Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Using Netupitant/Palonosetron

BACKGROUND

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be improved with guideline-consistent use of antiemetics. However, adherence to antiemetic guidelines remains often insufficient. Therefore, new strategies that improve adherence are needed.

OBJECTIVES

To review the latest antiemetic guideline recommendations and provide an update on the use of NEPA, a fixed combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (RA) netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA palonosetron (Akynzeo®).

METHODS

Analysis of the literature was performed, including guidelines, published literature, congress data on NEPA, and relevant articles on CINV.

FINDINGS

Nurses are in a unique position to promote guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis and are central in the education of patients and caregivers. Thus, nurses’ continuous education on antiemetic treatments is key for the prevention and management of CINV. NEPA offers a simplified antiemetic therapy with the potential to increase guideline adherence.

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with netupitant/palonosetron, the first fixed combination antiemetic: current and future perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can be prevented in most patients receiving appropriate antiemetic treatment. However, inadequate uptake of current antiemetic guideline recommendations by physicians, and poor treatment adherence by patients, lead to suboptimal CINV control. There is an unmet need to optimize guideline-consistent use of antiemetics to improve CINV management and prevention. Herein, we provide an overview of CINV, then discuss oral and intravenous NEPA, the first fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant/fosnetupitant and palonosetron. We describe the main pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of NEPA, and review the clinical evidence supporting its use in the prevention of CINV.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after high-dose melphalan and stem cell transplantation: review of the evidence and suggestions

INTRODUCTION

High-dose melphalan (HDMel) is the most common conditioning chemotherapy regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) in patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM). No consensus exists for the emetogenicity or prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in this regimen.

METHODS

Data on the incidence and efficacy/safety of CINV prophylaxis among patients affected by MM undergoing autologous SCT with the HDMel regimen was extracted from electronic databases and analyzed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving multiple CINV prophylaxis regimens were identified and included. No consensus on HDMel emetogenicity was reached, but most studies summarized the emetogenicity as moderate-high risk. An aprepitant-based three-drug regimen (aprepitant + serotonin receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) + dexamethasone) showed better efficacy than a two-drug regimen (5HT3RA + dexamethasone) for CINV prevention without increasing the frequency in adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The aprepitant-based three-drug regimen should be the regimen of choice for CINV prophylaxis for MM patients undergoing autologous SCT with HDMel conditioning.

Efficacy benefit of an NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) in patients receiving carboplatin: supportive evidence with NEPA (a fixed combination of the NK1 RA, netupitant, and palonosetron) and aprepitant regimens

PURPOSE

Antiemetic guideline recommendations are inconsistent as to whether a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) should be administered with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5HT3) RA + dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving carboplatin. Patients receiving cisplatin routinely receive an NK1 RA-containing regimen with a resulting 14-22 % benefit in no emesis rates over a 5-HT3 RA/DEX control. Recent studies suggest a similar benefit in patients receiving carboplatin. NEPA is the first fixed antiemetic combination agent and comprises the highly selective NK1 RA, netupitant, and pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (PALO). This paper presents the efficacy of NEPA in the subset of patients receiving carboplatin in a phase 3 trial (NCT01376297), in the context of aprepitant (APR) data in the carboplatin setting.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-six patients (47 % of all study patients: n = 145 NEPA + DEX; n = 51 APR + PALO + DEX) received carboplatin in a multinational, double-blind, randomized phase 3 study. Complete response (CR: no emesis/rescue) and no significant nausea (NSN: score ≤25 on 100 mm visual analog scale) rates were calculated.

RESULTS

Cycle 1-4 overall (0-120 h) CR rates were similar for NEPA (80, 91, 92, and 93 %) and APR (82, 88, 88, and 90 %). Overall NSN rates were also similar (NEPA 84-96 %; APR 82-90 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Response rates for NEPA and APR regimens were similar and consistent with prior studies evaluating the contribution of adding NK1 RAs in patients receiving carboplatin. Considering such evidence, guideline groups/practitioners should consider giving a NK1 RA antiemetic triplet in patients receiving carboplatin.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting by risk profile: role of netupitant/palonosetron

As recommended by most recent antiemetic guidelines, the optimal prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) requires the combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) with an NK1-RA. Moreover, the major predictors of acute and delayed CINV include: young age, female sex, platinum- or anthracycline-based chemotherapy, nondrinker status, emesis in the earlier cycles of chemotherapy, and previous history of motion/morning sickness. Despite improved knowledge of the pathophysiology of CINV and advances in the availability of active antiemetics, an inconsistent compliance with their use has been reported, thereby resulting in suboptimal control of CINV in several cases. In this scenario, a new anti-emetic drug is now available, which seems to be able to guarantee better prophylaxis of CINV and improvement of adherence to guidelines. In fact, netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a ready-to-use single oral capsule, combining an NK1-RA (netupitant) and a 5-HT3-RA (palonosetron), which is to be taken 1 hour before the administration of chemotherapy, ensuring the coverage from CINV for 5 days. We reviewed the role of NEPA in patients at high risk of CINV receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In these patients, NEPA plus dexamethasone, as compared to standard treatments, achieved superior efficacy in all primary and secondary end points during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, including nausea assessment. Moreover, these results were also achieved in female patients receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. NEPA represents a real step forward in the prophylaxis of CINV.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: role of transdermal granisetron

Granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) is the first 5-HT3 drug to be transdermally delivered and represents a convenient alternative to oral and intravenous antiemetics for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. GTDS is effective and well tolerated in patients receiving multiple-day moderate-to-highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this setting noninferiority studies showed similar efficacy when GTDS was compared with intravenous and oral granisetron and intravenous palonosetron. GTDS has shown good cardiovascular safety; however, special caution is needed in patients at risk for developing excessive QTc interval prolongation and arrhythmias. So far, GTDS has been investigated for intravenous prevention in comparison with granisetron and palonosetron; however, further prospects open the route to future clinical investigations.

Cardiotoxicity of antiemetic drugs in oncology: An overview of the current state of the art

PURPOSE

Cardiac complications in cancer patients have been a significant medical problem in the last few years. Cardiosafety profile of most novel approved drugs, in cancer patients, is required by regulatory authorities. Risk of proarrhythmic effect associated with a new drug, in fact, is usually evaluated with specific studies conducted in agreement with ICHE14 guidelines. In this overview, we detailed the cardio safety profile of antiemetic drugs. In particular, we focused on data of 5HT3-RA drugs used for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the oncology setting.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed database to identify studies reporting arrhythmic complications of antiemetic drug used in oncology.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Most of the antiemetic drugs have been approved by regulatory authorities when ICHE14 guidelines were not issued, so the cardiotoxicity of those drugs has been defined with the post-marketing authorization pharmacovigilance activity. We reviewed the cardiotoxicity data of major antiemetic and adjuvant agents, providing a general overview and recommendations about their use in medical oncology.

Safety of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron (NEPA): Pooled Data From the Phase II/III Clinical Program

BACKGROUND

Standard prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with highly emetogenic and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy includes a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), and corticosteroid therapy. NEPA is a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron. The primary objective of this analysis was to document the safety profile, including cardiac safety, of NEPA + dexamethasone in comparison with current therapies across all phase II/III trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This pooled analysis was based on data from 3,280 patients in 4 randomized, double-blind clinical trials. Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 pooled groups on the basis of actual treatment received: NEPA + dexamethasone, palonosetron + dexamethasone, and aprepitant + ondansetron/palonosetron + dexamethasone. Safety was assessed by number and frequency of adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline electrocardiogram measures.

RESULTS

Most patients were female and younger than 65 years of age. Demographic characteristics varied among studies and pooled groups. Frequencies of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar across groups. TEAEs were mostly mild and consistent with expected chemotherapy and disease-related AEs (hematologic events, hair loss, general weakness). TRAEs in ≥2% of patients were headache and constipation. Frequencies of cardiac TEAEs were similar across groups, with QT prolongation (1.6%), tachycardia (1.1%), and dyspnea (0.9%) the most common. Serious cardiac TEAEs were rare.

CONCLUSION

NEPA was well-tolerated, with an AE profile as expected for the regimen. Sample size, demographic characteristics, study design, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimen differences across the four studies may have contributed to differences in frequencies of neutropenia and alopecia. Adding an NK1RA to a CINV prophylaxis regimen can improve outcomes without additional toxicity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Supportive care for cancer should ideally be efficacious, convenient, and well-tolerated. There have been concerns about cardiac safety with current antiemetic prophylactic agents, namely dolasetron and ondansetron. This pooled safety analysis demonstrates that the new oral fixed combination therapy NEPA can be safely added to an antiemetic regimen without increased toxicity.

State of the Art Antiemetic Therapy for Cancer Patients

Nausea and vomiting are common in cancer patients. The most common cause of nausea and vomiting is the administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Apart from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), biological agents may also cause these symptoms. In this review, discussion will be focused on management of nausea and vomiting due to antineoplastic therapies. The cornerstone of effective management of nausea and vomiting secondary to these antineoplastic drugs is the prevention with the use of appropriate guideline-directed combination antiemetic regimen. Type 3 serotonin receptor antagonists (5HT3RAs), neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs), and dexamethasone are the backbone antiemetic drugs. In recent years, newer drugs and preparations have been introduced for clinical use and include second-generation 5HT3RA, palonosetron; granisetron transdermal patch; the recently introduced NK1RA rolapitant; and the novel oral combined drug NEPA (netupitant plus palonosetron); and last but not least, the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine.

A Review of NEPA, a Novel Fixed Antiemetic Combination with the Potential for Enhancing Guideline Adherence and Improving Control of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Combination antiemetic regimens targeting multiple molecular pathways associated with emesis have become the standard of care for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) related to highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapies. Antiemetic consensus guidelines from several professional societies are widely available and updated regularly as new data emerges. Unfortunately, despite substantial research supporting the notion that guideline conformity improves CINV control, adherence to antiemetic guidelines is unsatisfactory. While studies are needed to identify specific barriers to guideline use and explore measures to enhance adherence, a novel approach has been taken to improve clinician adherence and patient compliance, with the development of a new combination antiemetic. NEPA is an oral fixed combination of a new highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), netupitant, and the pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron. This convenient antiemetic combination offers guideline-consistent prophylaxis by targeting two critical pathways associated with CINV in a single oral dose administered only once per cycle. This paper will review and discuss the NEPA data in the context of how this first combination antiemetic may overcome some of the barriers interfering with adherence to antiemetic guidelines, enhance patient compliance, and offer a possible advance in the prevention of CINV for patients.

Reviewing current and emerging antiemetics for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

This review provides background information on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) classification and pathophysiology and reviews various antiemetic agents for CINV prophylaxis, including corticosteroids, serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs), tachykinin NK1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RAs), and olanzapine. Other less commonly used agents are briefly discussed. Practical considerations are reviewed as well, including emetogenicity of chemotherapeutic regimens, patient-specific risk factors for CINV, principles of CINV management, health economics outcome research, and quality of life. Available data on the newly FDA-approved antiemetic combination netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is also reviewed. Prevention of CINV is an important goal in managing patients with cancer and is especially difficult with respect to nausea and delayed CINV. Corticosteroids are a mainstay of CINV prophylaxis and are usually given in combination with other therapies. The 5-HT3 RA palonosetron has shown increased efficacy over other agents in the same class for prevention of delayed emesis with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NK1 RAs improve emesis prevention in combination with 5-HT3 RAs and dexamethasone. Olanzapine has shown efficacy for CINV prophylaxis and the treatment of breakthrough CINV. The new combination therapy, NEPA, has been shown to be efficacious for the prevention of acute, delayed, and overall CINV. Risk factors that have been identified for CINV include gender, age, and alcohol intake. It is important to assess the emetogenicity of chemotherapy regimens as well as the potential impact of patient risk factors in order to provide adequate prophylaxis. Acute and delayed CINV are severe, burdensome side effects of chemotherapy; however, new data on prevention and the discovery of new agents can further improve CINV control.

Palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an evidence-based review of safety, efficacy, and place in therapy

Introduction: The second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist palonosetron is effective in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC and MEC, respectively). In addition, palonosetron has been the first and, at present, the only 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist to have a specific indication for the prevention of delayed CINV associated with MEC. The unique pharmacology of this antagonist is thought to partly explain its improved efficacy against delayed symptoms.

Aims: To review the evidence underlying the use of palonosetron in preventing CINV.

Evidence review: A recent meta-analysis consistently showed that palonosetron significantly increases the control of both emesis and nausea during the acute and delayed phases after single-day HEC or MEC. Consistent with these findings from trials that did not include an neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist, randomized controlled trials recently showed that a triple combination with palonosetron achieves significantly better control of delayed CINV, particularly delayed nausea, in patients undergoing HEC or the high-risk combination of an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide (AC). Evidence from randomized studies also supports palonosetron as a valuable option to reduce the total corticosteroid dose administered in patients undergoing multiple cycles of MEC or AC chemotherapy. Additional benefits of palonosetron include the lack of a warning on cardiac safety and no known clinically significant drug–drug interactions.

Place in therapy and conclusion: Evidence currently available indicates that palonosetron significantly adds to the clinician’s ability to effectively control CINV in patients undergoing HEC or MEC. It is recommended in the international guidelines for the prevention of CINV caused by MEC. The high safety profile and the opportunity to reduce the total corticosteroid dose with no loss in efficacy against delayed CINV should also contribute to a wider use of palonosetron in clinical practice.

Effect of single doses of IV palonosetron, up to 2.25 mg, on the QTc interval duration: a double-blind, randomized, parallel group study in healthy volunteers

PURPOSE

The use of serotonin type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists (RAs) in the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by emetogenic chemotherapy is part of a comprehensive management strategy for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Electrocardiographic effects have been reported in patients after intravenous administration of 5-HT3 RAs. The present study investigated the electrocardiogram (ECG) profile of the 5-HT3 RA palonosetron following International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E14 Guidelines.

METHODS

A total of 221 healthy subjects (101 females, 120 males) were randomized in this phase I, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group study and assigned to one of five treatments: placebo, palonosetron (0.25, 0.75, or 2.25 mg), or moxifloxacin (400 mg). ECGs were recorded for 24 h pre-dosing until 48 h post-dose. The primary endpoint was the placebo time-matched and baseline-subtracted individual QTc interval prolongation (ΔΔQTcI).

RESULTS

The QTc interval was not prolonged after administration of palonosetron (ΔΔQTcI upper confidence interval was <10 ms for all time points in all palonosetron treatment groups). Assay sensitivity was confirmed with the expected change in the QTc interval after administration of the positive control moxifloxacin.

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron, even at supratherapeutic doses, has no effect on cardiac repolarization as measured by the QTc interval in a validated controlled clinical trial.

Romidepsin for the Treatment of Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma

Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas associated with poor prognosis in most subtypes. Diagnosis of this rare disease by expert hematopathologists improves accuracy of subtyping, and referral to academic or specialty centers is recommended. Many patients, however, will receive treatment in the community, and knowledge of approved agents is key to optimizing therapeutic approaches for all patients. There is no current standard of care for patients with PTCL and no approved therapies for first-line treatment. Although many patients initially respond to induction chemotherapy, responses are often brief, and many patients relapse or become treatment refractory. For patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL, achievement of durable responses is challenging, and there are few treatment options. Romidepsin is a histone deacetylase inhibitor approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma who have received one prior systemic therapy or more and patients with PTCL who have received one prior therapy or more. Approval of romidepsin for PTCL was based on a pivotal phase II study of patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL (n = 131) that demonstrated an objective response rate of 25% including 15% with complete response; responses lasted a median of >2 years. Long-term responses to romidepsin were achieved in patients regardless of baseline characteristics, including subtype, heavy pretreatment, response to prior therapy, or advanced disease. Common adverse events included hematologic abnormalities, gastrointestinal or asthenic conditions, and infections; romidepsin was not correlated with clinically meaningful QT prolongation or electrocardiogram abnormalities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Due to the rarity, severity, and heterogeneous nature of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), diagnosis by expert hematopathologists is preferred, and referral to specialty centers is recommended. Many patients, however, will receive treatment in the community, and community oncologists play a key role in the recognition and treatment of PTCL. Knowledge of approved agents is key for optimizing therapeutic approaches. This review provides an overview of PTCL and an in-depth examination of romidepsin, a histone deacetylase inhibitor approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory PTCL, and highlights difficulties of diagnosis and optimization of treatment modalities for patients with PTCL.

The role of netupitant and palonosetron in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

The combination of netupitant and palonosetron was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2014 for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Netupitant and palonosetron is available as a single capsule to be administered prior to each cycle of chemotherapy. The approval was based on phase II and III data in patients undergoing treatment with moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Netupitant and palonosetron’s benefits include a convenient dosage form, dual-targeted mechanism, and favorable side effect profile, while its main limitations are cost and potential logistical issues surrounding administration. More studies are needed to adequately determine its role in therapy as well as which patients will derive the most benefit from its use.

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.

Efficacy and safety of oral palonosetron compared with IV palonosetron administered with dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with solid tumors receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)

Purpose

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of oral palonosetron with intravenous (IV) palonosetron for the prevention of cisplatin-related chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods

A multinational, randomized, double-blind study enrolling adult chemotherapy-naive patients with malignant solid tumors scheduled to receive cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients received oral palonosetron (0.50 mg) or IV palonosetron (0.25 mg), each with oral dexamethasone. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of patients with a complete response (CR, no emesis/no rescue medication) within the acute phase (0–24 h after chemotherapy administration).

Results

Of the 743 patients randomized, 739 received study medications and 738 were included in the full analysis set. The CR rate in the acute phase was high for both groups (oral 89.4 %; IV 86.2 %). As this difference in proportions (stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method) was 3.21 % (99 % confidence interval (CI) −2.74 to 9.17 %), non-inferiority was demonstrated (since the lower limit of the 99 % CI was closer to zero than the predefined margin of 15 %). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to the study drug were rare (oral 3.2 %; IV 6.5 %). No TEAEs related to study drug leading to discontinuation were reported.

Conclusion

Non-inferiority of oral versus IV palonosetron was demonstrated. The CR rate in the acute phase was >86 % in both patient groups. The safety profiles were comparable.

Postdischarge Nausea and Vomiting Remains Frequent After Le Fort I Osteotomy Despite Implementation of a Multimodal Antiemetic Protocol Effective in Reducing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

PURPOSE

To assess the prevalence of postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) after Le Fort I osteotomy with and without the use of a multimodal antiemetic protocol shown to decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy with or without additional procedures at a single academic institution formed the intervention cohort for an institutional review board-approved prospective clinical trial with a retrospective comparison group. The intervention cohort was managed with a multimodal antiemetic protocol. The comparison group consisted of consecutive patients who underwent similar surgical procedures at the same institution before protocol implementation. All patients were asked to complete a postdischarge diary documenting the occurrence of nausea and vomiting. Those who completed the diaries were included in this analysis. Data were analyzed with the Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test. A P value less than .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Diaries were completed by 85% of patients in the intervention group (79 of 93) and 75% of patients in the comparison group (103 of 137). Patients in the intervention (n = 79) and comparison (n = 103) groups were similar in the proportion of patients with validated risk factors for PDNV, including female gender, history of PONV, age younger than 50 years, opioid use in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and nausea in the PACU (P = .37). The prevalence of PDNV was unaffected by the antiemetic protocol. After discharge, nausea was reported by 72% of patients in the intervention group and 60% of patients in the comparison group (P = .13) and vomiting was reported by 22% of patients in the intervention group and 29% of patients in the comparison group (P = .40).

CONCLUSION

Modalities that successfully address PONV after Le Fort I osteotomy might fail to affect PDNV, which is prevalent in this population. Future investigation will focus on methods to minimize PDNV.

Effects of combined netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA), a cancer supportive care antiemetic, on the ECG of healthy subjects: an ICH E14 thorough QT trial

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is ranked among the worst side effects of chemotherapy. NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination antiemetic under development, consisting of netupitant 300 mg, a highly selective NK₁ receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron 0.5 mg, a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT₃ RA. Although palonosetron is not associated with relevant ECG effects, this study evaluated cardiovascular safety of netupitant in combination with palonosetron, as well as its tolerability.

This randomised, placebo- and positively controlled study in 197 subjects included 4 treatment groups: placebo, 200 mg netupitant + 0.5 mg palonosetron (NEPA_200/0.5), 600 mg netupitant + 1.5 mg palonosetron (NEPA_600/1.5, a supratherapeutic dose), and 400 mg moxifloxacin. Assessments included a 24-h baseline ECG recording, followed by a single dose of treatment and ECG measurements for 2 days.

Mean placebo-corrected time-averaged changes from baseline were similar in NEPA_200/0.5 and NEPA_600/1.5 groups primarily for individually heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTcI: +4.7 and +3.6 ms, respectively) and for heart rate (HR: –3.3 bpm and –3.0 bpm), PR interval (–0.4 ms and 0.2 ms), and QRS interval (1 ms and 0.5 ms). The time-matched analysis showed no upper confidence interval >10 ms, with no suggestion of a QTc effect by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling for parent/metabolites. Moxifloxacin showed the expected placebo-corrected change from baseline (+8.4 ms time average) and the expected profile to establish assay sensitivity. No new morphologic changes of clinical relevance were observed. Treatment-related adverse events were comparable among groups.

This study showed that NEPA treatments produced no significant effects on QTcI, HR, PR interval, QRS interval, and cardiac morphology relative to placebo, even at supratherapeutic doses.

An open-label study to investigate the cardiac safety profile of cabazitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors

PURPOSE

This study assessed the cardiovascular safety of cabazitaxel, based on thorough evaluation of QT and non-QT variables, and the relationship between pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic electrocardiographic (ECG) profiles and the occurrence of Grade ≥3 cardiovascular adverse events.

METHODS

Patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with cabazitaxel 25 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Digital ECG recordings were obtained during Cycle 1 over 24 h after dosing. The primary end point was effect of cabazitaxel on QT interval corrected by the Fridericia formula (QTcF). Secondary end points were additional ECG parameters (QT, PR and QRS intervals, and heart rate), plasma pharmacokinetics of cabazitaxel and overall clinical safety.

RESULTS

The pharmacodynamic (ECG) population included 94 patients. In 63 patients with a full 24-h ECG evaluation, the maximum upper bound of 90 % confidence interval (CI) for mean QTcF change from baseline was 7.46 ms (mean 4.8 ms), occurring at 1 h 30 min post-infusion. The slope of QTcF change from baseline versus cabazitaxel concentration was slightly negative (-0.012 [95 % CI -0.017; -0.008], equivalent to a 1.2 ms decrease per 100 ng/mL increase in cabazitaxel concentration). For non-QT variables, no effect was noted. No Grade ≥3 cardiac adverse events were observed; Grade ≥3 hypotension and lymphocele occurred in two patients and one patient, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that cabazitaxel has no clinically significant cardiovascular adverse effects in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Multicenter phase IV study of palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas undergoing repeated cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

Antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) generally includes a serotonin-type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist (RA). The efficacy and safety of the second-generation 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron, in patients with NHL receiving MEC was assessed. Patients received a single iv bolus injection of 0.25 mg palonosetron and chemotherapy on day 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle, and up to three further consecutive cycles. Eighty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint, the percentage of patients with a complete response in the overall phase (0-120 h after chemotherapy in each cycle), increased from 68.2% (cycle 1) to 80.5% (cycle 2), remaining high for the following cycles, and > 90% patients were emesis-free without using aprepitant during therapy. Across all cycles, 78.4% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, but only 8% related to study drug, confirming palonosetron's good safety profile (EudraCT Number: 2008-007827-14).

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.

Vandetanib in advanced medullary thyroid cancer: review of adverse event management strategies

Introduction

Vandetanib has recently demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Given the potential for long-term vandetanib therapy in this setting, in addition to treatment for disease-related symptoms, effective management of related adverse events (AEs) is vital to ensure patient compliance and maximize clinical benefit with vandetanib therapy.

Methods

This expert meeting-based review aims to summarize published data on AEs associated with vandetanib therapy and to provide clinicians with specific practical guidance on education, monitoring, and management of toxicities induced in patients treated with vandetanib in advanced and metastatic MTC. The content of this review is based on the expert discussions from a multidisciplinary meeting held in October 2012.

Results

Characteristics, frequency, and risk data are outlined for a number of dermatological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and general AEs related to vandetanib treatment. Preventive strategies, practical treatment suggestions, and points for clinical consideration are provided.

Conclusions

Good patient and team communication is necessary for the prevention, early detection, and management of AEs of vandetanib. Physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers play a critical role in providing AE management and patient support to optimize outcomes with vandetanib in MTC.

Pooled analysis of phase III clinical studies of palonosetron versus ondansetron, dolasetron, and granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)

Purpose

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is integral to treatment success in patients with cancer. This analysis was undertaken to assess the relative efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus older 5HT₃ RAs in preventing CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Methods

Patient-level data from four randomized, double-blind, phase III trials comparing palonosetron 0.25 or 0.75 mg with ondansetron 32 mg, dolasetron 100 mg, or granisetron 40 μg/kg were analyzed. Endpoints included complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue antiemetics) in the acute (0–24 h), delayed (>24–120 h), and overall (0–120 h) postchemotherapy periods (primary), complete control (CC: no emesis, no rescue antiemetics, and no more than mild nausea), number of emetic episodes, and nausea severity.

Results

CR rates were significantly higher for palonosetron (n = 1,787) versus older 5HT₃ RAs (n = 1,175) in the delayed (57 vs 45 %, P < 0.0001) and overall periods (51 vs 40 %, P < 0.0001); odds ratios (95 % CI) in the acute, delayed, and overall periods were 1.15 (0.98–1.34), 1.62 (1.40–1.88), and 1.56 (1.34–1.81), respectively. Significant differences in CC rates and nausea severity were observed for the delayed and overall periods and in emetic episodes for all three periods. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar with palonosetron (0.25 mg, 20.0 %; 0.75 mg, 26.5 %) and older 5HT₃ RAs (27.5 %).

Conclusions

Palonosetron is more effective than older 5HT₃ RAs for controlling CINV in the delayed and overall postchemotherapy periods.

Case report of severe bradycardia due to transdermal fentanyl

BACKGROUND

This case report describes a patient who developed severe bradycardia due to transdermal fentanyl. There have been no prior case reports of this occurring in palliative care, but the frequency of association of fentanyl with bradycardia in the anesthesia setting suggests it may be more common than realized. Palliative care settings often have a policy of not routinely checking vital signs, and symptoms of bradycardia could be misinterpreted as the dying process.

CASE PRESENTATION

A patient with recurrent ovarian cancer was admitted with nausea and abdominal pain due to bowel obstruction and fever from a urinary tract infection. A switch from injectable hydromorphone to transdermal fentanyl resulted in symptomatic severe bradycardia within 36 h, without any other signs of opioid toxicity and with good analgesic effect.

CASE MANAGEMENT

The fentanyl patch was removed. Atropine was not required.

CASE OUTCOME

The patient made an uneventful recovery. Transdermal buprenorphine was subsequently used satisfactorily for long-term background pain control, with additional hydromorphone when needed.

CONCLUSIONS

The delayed absorption of fentanyl via the transdermal route makes early identification of fentanyl-induced bradycardia key to prompt reversal. Patients with resting or relative bradycardia may be at higher than average risk.

Palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains both a feared side effect of cancer treatment and a focus of many supportive care initiatives/guidelines. The class of medications known as serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) are integral in the prevention of CINV from both moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron (ALOXI(®)), a second-generation 5-HT3RA, has a higher affinity for the 5-HT3 receptor, has a longer half-life and has unique interactions with the 5-HT3 receptor compared with the current first-generation 5-HT3RA such as ondansetron, granisetron, dolasetron and tropisetron. This may allow palonosetron an advantage in control of CINV. This review article examines the available evidence, the pharmacokinetics and the safety and tolerability of palonosetron in the prevention of CINV.