The efficacy of triplet antiemetic therapy with 0.75 mg of palonosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in lung cancer patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Evaluation of Adherence to Antiemetic Treatment Guidelines in Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Teaching Hospitals in Tehran

The present study evaluated adherence to antiemetic guidelines for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in four tertiary university teaching hospitals in Tehran. This prospective observational study enrolled 382 adult patients on chemotherapy at oncology centers affiliated to medical universities located in Tehran. Patients were followed up during their chemotherapy cycles. Risk factors related to CINV were evaluated, and information on antiemetic prescribing patterns was gathered using direct interview and patient medical records. Guideline adherence was found to be low; however, 81.3% of the patients experienced chemotherapy without CINV. Low frequency of adherence to the guidelines in prescription patterns does not mean that prescription patterns were very different. Indeed, some drugs were added to base guideline recommendation regiments, since in high and moderate emetogenic chemotherapy categories, some novel antiemetics recommended by international guidelines are not yet included in Iranian pharmacopeia. It was shown that two drug classes were added as a common practice, namely, H1/H2 antagonists and dopamine receptor antagonist (metoclopramide). Statistically significant differences were found between antiemetic prescribing patterns of physicians and chemotherapy regimen category (aspect of emetogenic potential) (p < 0.001). The most commonly prescribed regimen in the minimal-emetic-risk category and the low-emetic-risk category was reported to be the combination of corticosteroids, 5HT3, and H1/H2 antagonists, 33% and 66.1% respectively. Moreover, corticosteroids +5HT3 and H1/H2 antagonists + NK1 antagonist were found to be the most frequently prescribed regimen in the moderate-emetic-risk category (39.7%) and high-emetic-risk category (41.8%). Antiemetic prescribing patterns were not completely compatible with the guidelines in moderate and high emetogenic chemotherapy categories. Differences were detected in two states of over- and undertreatment. The present study confirmed low level of adherence of antiemetic prescribing patterns with international guidelines. However, it could not be proved that high levels of adherence with the guidelines result in reduction of CINV incidence. Complete success in CINV control cannot be achieved only by adherence to the established guidelines as novel antiemetics recommended by the guidelines have not been included in the Iranian pharmacopeia as yet. The authors do recommend implementation of strategies for increasing guideline-compliant prescriptions with the aim of improving patients' outcomes. We also suggest that policymakers in healthcare system point more critically to overprescribing as an issue of concern.

Risk Factors Associated With Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea in the Week Before the Next Cycle and Impact of Nausea on Quality of Life Outcomes

CONTEXT

Despite current advances in antiemetic treatments, between 19% and 58% of oncology patients experience chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN).

OBJECTIVES

Aims of this post hoc exploratory analysis were to determine occurrence, severity, and distress of CIN and evaluate for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, symptom severity, stress; and quality of life (QOL) outcomes between oncology patients who did and did not report CIN in the week before chemotherapy (CTX). Demographic, clinical, symptom, and stress characteristics associated with CIN occurrence were determined.

METHODS

Patients (n = 1296) completed questionnaires that provided information on demographic and clinical characteristics, symptom severity, stress, and QOL. Univariate analyses evaluated for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, symptom severity, stress, and QOL scores between the two patient groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate for factors associated with nausea group membership.

RESULTS

Of the 1296 patients, 47.5% reported CIN. In the CIN group, 15% rated CIN as severe and 23% reported high distress. Factors associated with CIN included less education; having childcare responsibilities; poorer functional status; higher levels of depression, sleep disturbance, evening fatigue, and intrusive thoughts; as well as receipt of CTX on a 14-day CTX cycle and receipt of an antiemetic regimen that contained serotonin receptor antagonist and steroid. Patients in the CIN group experienced clinically meaningful decrements in QOL.

CONCLUSION

This study identified new factors (e.g., poorer functional status, stress) associated with CIN occurrence. CIN negatively impacted patients' QOL. Pre-emptive and ongoing interventions may alleviate CIN occurrence in high-risk patients.

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea: the role of neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists

Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists (RAs) has reduced the risk of vomiting, but (except for palonosetron) their effect on nausea, especially delayed nausea, is limited. This article reviews the role of NK₁RAs when combined with 5-HT₃RA–dexamethasone in CIN prophylaxis. Aprepitant has not shown consistent superiority over a two-drug (ondansetron–dexamethasone) combination in nausea control after cisplatin– or anthracycline–cyclophosphamide (AC)-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Recently, dexamethasone and dexamethasone–metoclopramide were demonstrated to be non-inferior to aprepitant and aprepitant–dexamethasone, respectively, for the control of delayed nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin), and are now recognized in the guidelines. The potential impact of the new NK₁RAs rolapitant and netupitant (oral fixed combination with palonosetron, as NEPA) in CIN prophylaxis is discussed. While the clinical significance of the effect on nausea of the rolapitant–granisetron–dexamethasone combination after cisplatin is not conclusive, rolapitant addition showed no improvement in nausea prophylaxis after AC or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). NEPA was superior to palonosetron in the control of nausea after HEC (AC/cisplatin). Moreover, the efficacy of NEPA in nausea control was maintained over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC. Recently, NK₁RAs have been challenged by olanzapine, with olanzapine showing superior efficacy in nausea prevention after HEC. Fixed antiemetic combinations (such as NEPA) or new antiemetics with a long half-life that may be given once per chemotherapy cycle (rolapitant or NEPA) may improve patient compliance with antiemetic treatment.

Efficacy of triple antiemetic therapy (palonosetron, dexamethasone, aprepitant) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major adverse toxicity of cancer chemotherapy. Recommended treatments for prevention of CINV vary among published guidelines, and optimal care for CINV caused by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy has not been established. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant for carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with lung cancer scheduled for a first course of a carboplatin-containing regimen formed the study cohort. Patients were pretreated with antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron (0.75 mg, i.v.) and dexamethasone (9.9 mg, i.v.) on day 1, and aprepitant (125 mg, p.o.) on day 1 followed by 80 mg on days 2 and 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who did not experience vomiting and did not require rescue medication [complete response (CR)] in the acute phase (0-24 h), late phase (24-168 h) and overall. Secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced no vomiting episodes and no more than mild nausea without the need for rescue medication [complete control (CC)].

RESULTS

Prevalence of a CR during the acute phase, delayed phase, and overall was 100, 91.9 and 91.9%, whereas that of CC was 100, 84.4 and 84.4%, respectively. The most common adverse event was mild constipation; severe adverse events related to antiemetic treatment were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Triple antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron, dexamethasone and aprepitant shows excellent effects in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving a carboplatin-containing regimen.

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.

Nephrotoxicity of cisplatin combination chemotherapy in thoracic malignancy patients with CKD risk factors

Background

Nephrotoxicity is the major side effect that limits the dose of cisplatin that can be safely administered, and it is a clinical problem in cancer patients who received cisplatin combination chemotherapy. Recent evidence has demonstrated that patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI). The present study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of CKD risk factors in patients who received cisplatin and to assess the correlation between CKD risk factors and cisplatin-induced AKI.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 84 patients treated with cisplatin combination chemotherapy for thoracic malignancies. AKI was defined as a decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 25 % from base line, an increase in the serum creatinine (sCre) level of > 0.3 mg/dl or ≥ 1.5 times the baseline level.

Results

Eighty of the 84 patients (95.2 %) had at least one risk factor for CKD. All enrolled patients received cisplatin with hydration, magnesium supplementation and mannitol. Cisplatin-induced AKI was observed in 18 patients (21.4 %). Univariate analysis revealed that cardiac disease and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were associated with cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity (odds ratios [OR] 6 and 3.56, 95 % confidence intervals [CI] 1.21–29.87 and 1.11–11.39, p = 0.04 and p = 0.04, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that cisplatin nephrotoxicity occurred significantly more often in patients with both risk factors (OR 13.64, 95 % CI 1.11–326.83, p = 0.04). Patients with more risk factors for CKD tended to have a greater risk of developing cisplatin-induced AKI.

Conclusions

We should consider avoiding administration of cisplatin to patients with CKD risk factors, particularly cardiac disease and NSAID use.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2271-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Comparative evaluation of triplet antiemetic schedule versus doublet antiemetic schedule in chemotherapy-induced emesis in head and neck cancer patients

PURPOSE

To compare the antiemetic combination of palonosetron, dexamethasone, and aprepitant (PDA) with antiemetic combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone (OD) in head and neck cancer patients receiving docetaxel, carboplatin, and 5-FU based chemotherapy.

METHODS

Sixty previously untreated patients were randomly divided into two groups of thirty patients each. The PDA group received a combination of palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously (IV), dexamethasone 12 mg IV, and capsule aprepitant per oral. OD group received ondansetron 16 mg IV, and dexamethasone 12 mg IV for emesis control. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of two antiemetic schedules for preventing acute and delayed CINV (chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR).

RESULTS

All the patients tolerated both schedules well. The antiemetic response for acute emesis (first 24 hours) in PDA versus OD group was: CR was 86.7 versus 60%. For delayed emesis (from day 2-5) in PDA versus OD group CR was 83.3 versus 53.3%. The intensity of acute nausea (first 24 hours) in PDA versus OD group was: no nausea-70 versus 46.6%. The intensity of delayed nausea (from day 2-5) in PDA versus OD was: no nausea-76.6 versus 43.3%. The CR to both acute and delayed emesis (no vomiting from day 1-5) in PDA versus OD group was 83.3 versus 53.3% (p < 0.05, significant). The CR to nausea (no nausea from day 1-5) in PDA versus OD group was 70 versus 43.3% (p < 0.05, significant).

CONCLUSION

Although both the schedules were tolerated well, the PDA schedule (palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone) was significantly better than the OD schedule (ondansetron and dexamethasone) in controlling cancer CINV in the acute as well as delayed phases.

Therapeutic action of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists targeting peritoneal macrophages in post-operative ileus

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Post-operative ileus (POI) is induced by intestinal inflammation. Here, we aimed to clarify the effects of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists against POI.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

We administered three 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, ondansetron, tropisetron and palonosetron, to a mouse model of POI induced by surgical intestinal manipulation (IM). Immunohistochemistry, intestinal transit, inflammatory mediator mRNA expression and 5-HT content were measured. In some experiments, 5-HT3 A receptor null mice were used.

KEY RESULTS

Three 5-HT3 receptor antagonists reduced IM-induced infiltration of inflammatory CD68-positive macrophages and myeloperoxidase-stained neutrophils. Ondansetron exhibited no anti-inflammatory actions in 5-HT3 A receptor null mice. Ondansetron inhibited expression of the chemokine CCL2, IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α and iNOS mRNAs up-regulated by IM, and also ameliorated the delayed gastrointestinal transit. Peritoneal macrophages, but not most infiltrating monocyte-derived macrophages, expressed 5-HT3 receptors. IM stimulation increased the 5-HT content of peritoneal lavage fluid, which up-regulated mRNA expression of proinflammatory cytokines in peritoneal macrophages. Immunohistochemical localization of 5-HT3 receptors suggests that ondansetron suppressed expression of these mRNAs in activated peritoneal macrophages, adhering to the serosal region of the inflamed intestinal wall.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

5-HT3 receptor antagonists were anti-inflammatory, mainly targeting peritoneal macrophages expressing these receptors. They also restored the delayed gastrointestinal transit by IM. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists should be therapeutically useful agents against POI.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Antiemetic therapy in Asia Pacific countries for patients receiving moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy--a descriptive analysis of practice patterns, antiemetic quality of care, and use of antiemetic guidelines

PURPOSE

This paper reports prescribing patterns for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) for cancer in six Asia Pacific countries.

METHODS

In a prospective noninterventional study, 31 sites in Australia, China, India, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan recorded details of CINV prophylaxis for the acute phase (first 24 h) and delayed phase (days 2-5) after single-day HEC or MEC for adult patients. Additional information on CINV prophylactic medications was collected from 6-day patient diaries. Primary antiemetic therapies were defined as corticosteroids, the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3-RAs), and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1-RAs).

RESULTS

Evaluable patients in cycle 1 numbered 648 (318 [49%] HEC and 330 [51%] MEC) of mean (SD) age of 56 (12) years, including 58% women. For the acute phase after HEC, overall (and country range), 96% (91-100%) of patients received a 5HT3-RA, 87% (70-100%) a corticosteroid, and 43% (0-91%) an NK1-RA. CINV prophylaxis for the HEC delayed phase was more variable: including 22% (7-65%) 5HT3-RA, 52% (12-93%) corticosteroid, and 46% (0-88%) NK1-RA. For the MEC acute phase, 97% (87-100%) of patients received 5HT3-RA and 86% (73-97%) a corticosteroid. For the MEC delayed phase, 201 patients (61%) received a primary antiemetic, including 5HT3-RA (41%), corticosteroid (37%), and/or NK1-RA (4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The 5HT3-RAs were prescribed consistently in all countries, while prescribing of other antiemetic therapies was variable, and corticosteroids were under-prescribed for CINV prophylaxis, particularly in the delayed phase.

Assessment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in women with breast cancer: a Neuman systems model framework

The importance of nursing theory and models for the development of the nursing profession is becoming increasingly evident in literature. This article demonstrates the use of the Betty Neuman Systems Model (NSM) to assess, as well as determine the predictors of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients diagnosed with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. The selection of the model for practice reflects the congruency between the level of severity of CINV and the patient-related risk factors. In addition, the NSM was used to determine the appropriate nursing interventions necessary to strengthen the flexible lines of defense and the lines of resistance in addition to maintaining system stability.

Internal mouthpiece designs as a future perspective for enhanced aerosol deposition. Comparative results for aerosol chemotherapy and aerosol antibiotics

BACKGROUND

In an effort to identify factors producing a finest mist from Jet-Nebulizers we designed 2 mouthpieces with 4 different internal designs and 1-3 compartments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten different drugs previous used with their "ideal" combination of jet-nebulizer, residual-cup and loading were used. For each drug the mass median aerodynamic diameter size had been established along with their "ideal" combination.

RESULTS

For both mouthpiece, drug was the most important factor due the high F-values (Flarge=251.7, p<0.001 and Fsmall=60.1, p<0.001) produced. The design affected the droplet size but only for large mouthpiece (Flarge=5.99, p=0.001, Fsmall=1.72, p=0.178). Cross designs create the smallest droplets (2.271) so differing from the other designs whose mean droplets were greater and equal ranging between 2.39 and 2.447. The number of compartments in the two devices regarding the 10 drugs was found not statistically significant (p-values 0.768 and 0.532 respectively). Interaction effects between drugs and design were statistically significant for both devices (Flarge=8.87, p<0.001, Fsmall=5.33, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on our experiment we conclude that further improvement of the drugs intended for aerosol production is needed. In addition, the mouthpiece design and size play an important role in further enhancing the fine mist production and therefore further experimentation is needed.