Three palonosetron regimens to prevent CINV in myeloma patients receiving multiple-day high-dose melphalan and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Antiemetic prophylaxis regimens in haematologic malignancies patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Which is the best standard of care? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic prophylaxis in haematological patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy as part of their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) conditioning regimens.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane database to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of antiemetic prophylaxis. Studies in English, French, Italian or Spanish were included. This review is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42023406380.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were analysed. The antiemetic regimens evaluated ranged from monotherapy with 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor 3 antagonists (5-HT3RAs) to complex combinations including olanzapine, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3RAs and corticosteroids. Complete response rates for triplet or quadruple regimens varied between 23.5% and 81.9%. Although no significant adverse effects were observed, minor symptoms such as diarrhoea, constipation, sedation and headaches were reported.

CONCLUSION

Existing evidence on HSCT antiemetic therapy highlights its benefits but fails to provide clear clinical directions. The choice between triplet and quadruplet therapies for different patient scenarios is still uncertain. Until more detailed research is available, healthcare providers must rely on the latest guidelines and their judgement to customise antiemetic care for each patient's specific needs and risks.

Comparison of netupitant/palonosetron with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist in preventing of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

The use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5HT3RA) has long been considered the standard regimen for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). However, their therapeutic outcomes have been unsatisfactory. NEPA, an oral formulation combining the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant and the 5HT3RA palonosetron, has received regulatory approval for the management of highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. This study aims to compare the efficacy of NEPA with that of 5HT3RA alone in preventing CINV among patients undergoing multiday conditioning chemotherapy prior to HSCT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent HSCT between September 2019 and September 2022. Efficacy outcomes were assessed based on the rates of patients achieving complete response (CR: no emesis and no use of rescue medication), complete control (CC: CR without significant nausea), no vomiting, and no significant nausea.

RESULTS

The NEPA group consisted of 106 patients, while the 5HT3RA group included 107 patients. The NEPA group exhibited significantly higher rates of CR compared to the 5HT3RA group during the overall phase (71.7% vs. 32.7%, P<0.001), acute phase (78.3% vs. 43.0%, P<0.001), and delayed phase (84.9% vs. 58.9%, P<0.001). Similarly, rates of CC, no vomiting, and no significant nausea were significantly better in the NEPA group across all phases (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

NEPA demonstrated superior efficacy compared to 5HT3RA in preventing CINV during all phases of multiday conditioning regimens among patients undergoing HSCT.

Ocular Administration of Palonosetron in the Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

Cancer treatments are frequently associated with nausea and vomiting despite greatly improved preventive medication. Administration of antinausea agents as eye drops might provide easy and rapid access to the systemic circulation for prevention of nausea and vomiting and for the treatment of breakthrough nausea, but the ocular administration route has rarely been evaluated. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist approved for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We compared ocular administration of palonosetron to non-active vehicle eye drops and to intravenous palonosetron in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in beagle dogs. Palonosetron ocular drops at the dose of 30 µg/kg reduced cumulative nausea over time as measured with the area under the visual analog scale curve by 98% compared with the vehicle and reduced nausea-associated dog behavior by 95%. Vomiting was completely prevented with repeated palonosetron ocular dosing. Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HP-β-CD) palonosetron formulation was well tolerated locally at the palonosetron concentration of 3 mg/ml. Absorption of palonosetron from eye drops was fast. Ten minutes after ocular administration, palonosetron plasma concentrations were similar compared with intravenous administration, and remained similar for six hours. We conclude that palonosetron is rapidly absorbed into the systemic circulation from eye drops. Ocularly administered palonosetron was well tolerated in the HP-β-CD formulation and was highly effective in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of ocular administration of palonosetron is warranted in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in clinical trials. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Palonosetron, an effective and well-tolerated antiemetic drug was rapidly absorbed into the systemic blood circulation when administered as eye drops. The achieved palonosetron blood concentrations prevented cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in beagle dogs. Palonosetron eye drops might provide an easy and quick method for administering palonosetron when parenteral administration is desired and intravenous administration is not feasible.

Antiemetic Strategies in Patients Who Undergo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an integral part of the treatment strategy in patients with a hematological disorder. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is still an issue in patients who undergo HSCT. While several guidelines for the antiemetic therapy against CINV have been published, there is no detailed information about appropriate antiemetic drugs for each conditioning regimen in HSCT. Various studies reported that the triplet of 5-HT3RA, NK1RA, and dexamethasone appears useful in HSCT. However, each antiemetic has unique adverse effects or interactions with specific drugs. Here, we review the literature relating to clinical trials on the prevention of CINV, and summarize the information to clarify the benefit of antiemetic regimens.

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

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

Efficacy of ondansetron against emesis induced by a multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen for malignant lymphoma

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA), ondansetron, in patients with malignant lymphoma receiving multi-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients receiving the first course of an ESHAP (etoposide, cisplatin, methylprednisolone, cytarabine) regimen including 4-day continuous infusion of cisplatin (25 mg/m²/day). All patients received ondansetron 4 mg intravenously during 5-day administration of ESHAP. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) for emesis, which was defined as absence of both emesis and rescue medications. Total control (TC) was defined as an absence of emetic episodes, including nausea and emesis, and complete protection (CP) was defined as an absence of emesis with addition of rescue antiemetics. Nausea and vomiting were assessed and graded daily by medical staff.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were analyzed. Nausea and vomiting were generally well controlled, with the CR rates of emesis being 79% in the overall phase, 82% in the early phase (days 1-6), and 89% in the delayed phase (days 7-10). TC and CP were achieved in 51 patients (62%) and 77 patients (94%) in the overall phase.

DISCUSSION

Most of the chemotherapy regimens for lymphoid malignancies include high-dose corticosteroid which may be also effective as antiemetics. Although NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) is generally recommended for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy, it can interact with variety drugs.

CONCLUSION

Although NK1RA is generally recommended for cisplatin-containing regimen, our results suggest that ondansetron effectively controlled emesis in patients receiving ESHAP therapy which includes high-dose corticosteroid.

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.

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.

Recent advances in antiemetics: new formulations of 5HT3-receptor antagonists

Purpose

To discuss new therapeutic strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) involving 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃)-receptor antagonists (RAs).

Summary

CINV remains poorly controlled in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); nausea and delayed-phase CINV (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) are the most difficult to control. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) antiemesis-guideline recommendations for HEC include a four-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, neurokinin 1 [NK₁] RA, dexamethasone, and olanzapine). For some MEC regimens, a three-drug regimen (5HT₃ RA, NK₁ RA, and dexamethasone) is recommended. While 5HT₃ RAs have dramatically improved CINV in the acute phase (0-24 hours after chemotherapy), their efficacy declines in the delayed phase. Newer formulations have been developed to extend 5HT₃-RA efficacy into the delayed phase. Granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), the most recently approved 5HT₃ RA, provides slow, controlled release of therapeutic granisetron concentrations for ≥5 days. GERSC is included in the NCCN and ASCO guidelines for MEC and HEC, with NCCN-preferred status for MEC in the absence of an NK₁ RA. Efficacy and safety of 5HT₃ RAs in the context of guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy are reviewed.

Conclusion

Recent updates in antiemetic guidelines and the development of newer antiemet-ics should help mitigate CINV, this dreaded side effect of chemotherapy. GERSC, the most recently approved 5HT₃-RA formulation, is indicated for use with other antiemetics to prevent acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with initial and repeat courses of MEC and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination-chemotherapy regimens.

Olanzapine Reduces Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting Compared With Aprepitant in Myeloma Patients Receiving High-dose Melphalan Before Stem Cell Transplantation: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occurs in most patients who receive high-dose melphalan and significantly affects patients' quality of life during autologous stem cell transplantation. Faced with unsatisfactory results using an aprepitant-based regimen, an olanzapine-based regimen was initiated, with the hope of improving the incidence of acute and delayed CINV. A retrospective study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine- versus aprepitant-based regimens for CINV prevention in adult hematopoietic stem cell recipients who received high-dose melphalan.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared olanzapine (n = 43) to aprepitant (n = 54) and fosaprepitant (n = 20). Olanzapine was given orally at 5 mg twice daily for 5 days, aprepitant was given at 125 mg on day -1 and 80 mg on days 0 and 1, and fosaprepitant was given at 150 mg on day -1. The dose of 2 concomitant drugs (dexamethasone and 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist) was similar in the 2 groups. Nausea prevention was the primary endpoint. A complete response using a composite index of no emesis and no use of rescue medications was the secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

The results showed that olanzapine significantly reduced the number of patients who experienced acute (P < .0001) or delayed (P < .004) nausea and significantly reduced the use of rescue medications for acute-onset (P < .0046) and delayed-onset (P < .0001) CINV compared with aprepitant.

CONCLUSION

Compared with fosaprepitant, olanzapine reduced the number of patients with acute (P < .0318) and delayed (P < .1519) nausea and reduced the need for rescue medications for acute-onset (P < .0643) and delayed-onset (P < .0024) CINV.

Palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for prevention of nausea and vomiting after high-dose melphalan in autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma: A phase II study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant side effect in multiple myeloma (MM) patients receiving high-dose melphalan treatment followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a triple antiemetic combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and low-dose dexamethasone in 24 MM patients who received melphalan conditioning (100 mg/m² on days 1-2) before ASCT (on day 4). Intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg on day 1), oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1; 80 mg on days 2-4), and intravenous dexamethasone (6.6 mg on days 1-4) were administered for prevention of CINV. Complete response (no emesis and no rescue antiemetic) and complete control (no emesis, no rescue antiemetic, and no more than mild nausea) rates were 75 and 68% during the overall phase (0-120 h), while they were 88 and 86% in the acute phase (0-48 h), 75 and 68% in the delayed phase (48-120 h), and 67 and 59% in the extended phase (120-168 h), respectively. There were no serious adverse events related to the antiemetic therapy. In conclusion, the three-antiemetic regimen consisting of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was safe and effective for controlling CINV due to high-dose melphalan treatment, especially during the delayed phase.

A randomized trial of olanzapine versus palonosetron versus infused ondansetron for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of olanzapine, palonosetron and ondansetron infusion (standard of care) for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

METHOD

It was a randomized open-label prospective study. Sixty-two patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 32-mg infusion over 24 h, or olanzapine wafer 10 mg once daily in addition to ondansetron 8 mg IV three times a day or a single dose of palonosetron 0.25 mg IV instead of ondansetron. All groups were allowed rescue antiemetics. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of no emesis, no use of rescue medication, and nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. The secondary endpoint was nausea score reduction of ≥50 %. Both endpoints were measured at 24 and 48 h after initiation of the study treatment. Statistical analysis was conducted using a double-sided Fisher's exact test.

RESULT

The primary endpoint was achieved in 6, 45, and 18 %, and 6, 64, and 18 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetron patient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. The secondary outcome was observed in 17, 60, and 62 %, and 35, 71, and 43 % of ondansetron versus olanzapine versus palonosetron patient groups at 24 and 48 h, respectively. Serious adverse drug reactions were not reported in any arms. Time to engraftment was not significantly different between the arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine was an effective treatment of breakthrough CINV. A single dose of palonosetron significantly reduced nausea up to 24 h.

Combination of Palonosetron, Aprepitant, and Dexamethasone Effectively Controls Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Treated with Concomitant Temozolomide and Radiotherapy: Results of a Prospective Study

Concomitant use of temozolomide (TMZ) and radiotherapy, which is the standard therapy for patients with high-grade glioma, involves a unique regimen with multiple-day, long-term administration. In a previous study, we showed not only higher incidence rates of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during the overall study period, but also substantially higher incidence rates of moderate/severe nausea and particularly severe appetite suppression during the late phase of the treatment. Here, we prospectively evaluated the efficacy of a combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for CINV in patients treated with concomitant TMZ and radiotherapy. Twenty-one consecutive patients with newly diagnosed high-grade glioma were enrolled. CINV was recorded using a daily diary and included nausea assessment, emetic episodes, degree of appetite suppression, and use of antiemetic medication. The percentage of patients with a complete response in the overall period was 76.2%. The percentages of patients with no moderate/severe nausea were 90.5, 100, and 90.5% in the early phase, late phase, and overall period, respectively. Severe appetite suppression throughout the overall period completely disappeared. The combination of palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone was highly effective and well tolerated in patients treated with concomitant TMZ and radiotherapy. This combination of antiemetic therapy focused on delayed as well as acute CINV and may have the potential to overcome CINV associated with a multiple-day, long-term chemotherapy regimen.

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.

Evaluation of an every-other-day palonosetron schedule to control emesis in multiple-day high-dose chemotherapy

AIM

Efficacy of intermittent palonosetron dosing in patients undergoing multiple-day, high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) was investigated.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Fifty-eight patients received palonosetron (0.25 mg intravenous [iv.]) every other day plus daily dexamethasone (8 mg iv. twice daily) dosing. The primary end point was complete control (CC; no emesis, no rescue anti-emetics, and no more than mild nausea) in the overall acute-period (until 24 h after chemotherapy completion).

RESULTS

Acute-period CC occurred in 81% and 50% of patients receiving palonosetron and ondansetron (historical control cohort), respectively. Palonosetron (odds ratio [OR]: 4.37; p = 0.001) and a longer duration of HDC regimen (OR: 3.47; p = 0.011) independently predicted a better anti-emetic outcome.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron every other day plus daily dexamethasone is an effective anti-emetic coverage in patients undergoing HDC.

Fosaprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving BEAM or high-dose melphalan before autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of single-dose fosaprepitant on nausea and emesis after BEAM and high-dose melphalan conditioning regimens for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

In a single-center cohort study patients receiving melphalan containing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation regimens who received a one-time dose of 150 mg IV fosaprepitant (n = 56) were compared to a historical control (n = 70).

RESULTS

The primary endpoint of no emesis from melphalan administration through five days afterward was 80% for the fosaprepitant group versus 66% in the control group (p = 0.068). Addition of fosaprepitant demonstrated significant improvement in emetic episodes per patient during the entire assessment period (p = 0.011) and days 1-5 after melphalan (p = 0.045). Fosaprepitant resulted in no substantial nausea during the entire assessment period in 37% of high-dose melphalan patients and 57% of BEAM patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies are suggested to investigate the optimal number and timing of doses of fosaprepitant in this setting.

Effectiveness of antiemetics in control of antineoplastic chemotherapy-induced emesis at home

Objective Evaluating if antiemetics are effective in the prevention or treatment at home, of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Methods In total, were included 42 women with breast cancer in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, using dexamethasone/ondansetron before each cycle. The frequency of nausea and vomiting was obtained by applying the instrument in the pre-chemotherapy period, and 24h, 48h, 72h and 96h after chemotherapy. The use of antiemetics was considered in accordance with adherence to medical prescription. Results All patients (n = 42, 100%) reported emesis at some point. Only five cases (11.9%) were anticipatory. In the first 24 hours (acute emesis), 38 (90.5%)ayed), emesis was reported by all despite the regular use (n = 20, 47.6%) or not (n = 22, 52.4%) of antiemetics (ondansetron, dexamethasone and metoclopramide/or dimenhydrinate). Conclusion Antiemetics were not effective in the prevention or treatment at home, of chemotherapy-induced emesis.

Palonosetron versus first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists for emesis prophylaxis in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

First-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists (RAs) are currently the standard of care for prophylaxis against allo-HSCT-induced emesis. However, the efficacy of this combination in allo-HSCT recipients is not entirely satisfying. We sought to compare the efficacy of first-generation 5-HT3 RAs with that of second-generation 5-HT3 RAs in emesis prevention in allo-HSCT recipients. A total of 51 consecutive patients undergoing allo-HSCT for various hematological diseases in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received daily first-generation 5-HT3 RAs, and 60-h palonosetron for emesis prophylaxis were stratified into the standard (n = 23) and palonosetron (n = 28) groups, respectively. Emesis severity and rescue therapy requirements in patients between these two groups were compared. Our results showed patients in standard and palonosetron groups had comparable severity of both acute and delayed emesis. However, 52.2 % of the patients in the standard group required rescue therapy, compared to only 21.4 % of the patients in the palonosetron group (p = 0.046). Subgroup analysis showed rescue therapy for acute emesis was required by 26.1 % of the patients in the standard group and by only 3.6 % of the patients in the palonosetron group (p = 0.037). In conclusion, palonosetron and first-generation 5-HT3 RAs were at least equally effective in emesis prophylaxis for allo-HSCT recipients. Patients receiving palonosetron, especially for acute emesis, required rescue therapy less frequently than those receiving first-generation 5-HT3 RAs.

Combined use of multiday palonosetron with aprepitant and low-dose dexamethasone in prevention of nausea and emesis among patients with multiple myeloma and lymphoma undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

The current standard for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting in autologous stem cell transplant only achieves 4-20% emetic control.

OBJECTIVES

To assess emetic responses to multiday palonosetron, aprepitant, and low-dose dexamethasone among patients with myeloma and lymphoma undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

METHODS

Oral aprepitant 125/80/80 mg was administered with intravenous dexamethasone 4 mg and palonosetron 0.25 mg on days -3, -2, -1 for multiple myeloma and days -7 through -3 for lymphoma. Palonosetron was repeated day +3 in both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were enrolled and 18 analyzed. None experienced emetic failure with complete control achieved in 78, 33, and 17% in the acute, delayed, and extended phases, respectively. Nausea occurred in 78% although not significant in 61%, with median Nausea Visual Score of 4.5. Quality of life correlated with emetic and nausea control. Eight patients developed grade 2-3 nonhematologic toxicities with only one event attributed to the study medications.

CONCLUSIONS

This triplet regimen was feasible with acceptable safety profile in the autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant setting. Emetic control was best achieved in the acute phase. Lesser degree of emetic and nausea control in the delayed and extended phases impacted quality of life. Our results warrant further evaluation in a larger autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant population.

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.

Efficacy and safety of aprepitant in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Study Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aprepitant added to standard antiemetic regimens used in high-dose chemotherapy for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Design

Retrospective medical record review.

Setting

Hematology ward of a university hospital in Japan.

Patients

Of 88 patients treated with high-dose chemotherapy followed by allo-HSCT, 46 received aprepitant and granisetron as antiemetic therapy (between April 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011), and 42 received granisetron alone (between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2010).

Interventions

Patients in both groups received 3 mg of granisetron intravenously 30 minutes before the administration of anticancer drugs. In the aprepitant group, 125 mg of aprepitant was administered orally 60–90 minutes before the administration of the first moderately to highly emetogenic anticancer drug. On the following days, 80 mg of aprepitant was administered orally every morning. The mean administration duration of aprepitant was 3.3 days (range 3–6 days).

Measurements and Main Results

The primary objective was to evaluate the percentage of patients who achieved complete response (CR; no vomiting and none to mild nausea). The CR rate in the aprepitant group was significantly higher than that in the control group (48% vs 24%, p=0.02). Multivariate analysis showed that nonprophylactic use of aprepitant was associated with failure to achieve CR (odds ratio [OR] 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13–7.99, p=0.03). The frequency of abdominal pain was lower in the aprepitant group (9% vs 25%, p=0.03). Rates of other frequently observed adverse drug events were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in neutrophil engraftment (median 18 vs 17 days), platelet engraftment (median 32 vs 32 days), the incidence of acute graft-versus-host-disease (63% vs 55%, p=0.52), viral infection (74% vs 67%, p=0.49), or 1-year overall survival (63% vs 62%, p=0.90) between the two groups.

Conclusions

The addition of aprepitant to granisetron increases the antiemetic effect without influencing transplantation-related toxicities in allo-HSCT.

An update on palonosetron hydrochloride for the treatment of radio/chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Nausea and vomiting are well recognized in different clinical situations, suggesting that no single mechanism is likely to be responsible for their production. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) can have a negative impact on quality of life and this may lead to a refusal of curative therapy or to a decline in palliative benefits offered by cytotoxic treatment. Palonosetron is a new agent in the class of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs), and differs from the other agents by its higher receptor-binding affinity and longer half-life. These pharmacological properties have resulted in improved antiemetic activity in clinical trials, particularly in the treatment of delayed CINV following moderate emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

AREA COVERED

A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library and meeting materials from ASCO and MASCC were all searched.

EXPERT OPINION

Palonosetron was the only serotonin receptor antagonist approved for prevention of delayed CINV caused by MEC and its use was incorporated in guideline recommendations. To date, several treatment settings such as multiple day chemotherapy require further studies to improve emesis related to therapy.