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

Intraoperative Prophylaxis with Palonosetron for Postoperative Nausea and/or Vomiting in Adults Undergoing Cardiothoracic Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the efficacy of palonosetron, alone or with dexamethasone, in reducing postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) and its impact on hospitalization duration in patients who undergo adult cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) under general anesthesia.

DESIGN

This retrospective analysis involved 540 adult patients who underwent CTS from a single-center cohort, spanning surgeries between September 2021 and March 2023. Sensitivity, logistic, and Cox regression analyses evaluated antiemetic effects, PONV risk factors, and outcomes.

SETTING

At the Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC), Seattle, WA.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults undergoing cardiothoracic surgery at VMMC during the specified period.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were categorized into the following 4 groups based on antiemetic treatment: dexamethasone, palonosetron, dexamethasone with palonosetron, and no antiemetic.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Primary outcomes encompassed PONV incidence within 96 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit stay duration and postoperative opioid use. Palonosetron recipients showed a significantly lower PONV rate of 42% (v controls at 63%). The dexamethasone and palonosetron combined group also demonstrated a lower rate of 40%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a notably lower 0- to 12-hour PONV rate for palonosetron recipients (9% v control at 28%). Logistic regression found decreased PONV risk (palonosetron odds ratio [OR]: 0.24; dexamethasone and palonosetron OR: 0.26). Cox regression identified varying PONV hazard ratios related to female sex, PONV history, and lower body mass index.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-center retrospective study underscored palonosetron's efficacy, alone or combined with dexamethasone, in managing PONV among adult patients who undergo CTS. These findings contribute to evolving antiemetic strategies in cardiothoracic surgery, potentially impacting patient outcomes and satisfaction positively.

Mechanistic approach to the management of cancer-related nausea and vomiting in a palliative care resource-limited setting

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are two interrelated distressing symptoms experienced by patients with malignancies. They are multifactorial in aetiology.

CASE PRESENTATION

A middle-aged woman diagnosed with bilateral ovarian malignancy had undergone chemotherapy and was suffering nausea and vomiting, and was responding to basic therapeutic measures.

CASE MANAGEMENT

She was resistant to treatment with metoclopramide that was commenced by the oncology team, as for any patient with nausea and vomiting. This report examines a 'mechanistic' approach to nausea management and life-style modifications.

CASE OUTCOME

Within 2 days of the evidence-based revision of her management plan, the patient expressed that she had experienced a significant symptomatic relief and an improvement in her general wellbeing.

CONCLUSION

The early identification of the most probable causative factors of nausea and vomiting in patients with advanced malignancies will lead to significant improvements in their quality of life and save time and resources.

Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) and dexamethasone for prevention of emesis in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide: a multi-cycle, phase II study

Background

NEPA is an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a new highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and palonosetron. This study was conducted to evaluate whether the efficacy of NEPA against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cycle 1 would be maintained over subsequent chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study also describes the relationship between efficacy on day 1 through 5 (overall period) and control of CINV on day 6 through 21 (very late period) in each cycle.

Methods

In this multicentre, phase II study, patients received both NEPA and dexamethasone (12 mg intravenously) just before chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication use) in cycle 1. Sustained efficacy was evaluated during the subsequent cycles by calculating the rate of CR in cycles 2–4 and by assessing the probability of sustained CR over multiple cycles. The impact of both overall CR and risk factors for CINV on the control of very late events (vomiting and moderate-to-severe nausea) were also examined.

Results

Of the 149 patients enrolled in the study, 139 were evaluable for a total of 552 cycles; 97.8% completed all 4 cycles. The proportion of patients with an overall CR was 70.5% (90% CI, 64.1 to 76.9) in cycle 1, and this was maintained in subsequent cycles. The cumulative percentage of patients with a sustained CR over 4 cycles was 53%. NEPA was well tolerated across cycles. In each cycle, patients with CR experienced a significantly better control of very late CINV events than those who experienced no CR. Among the patients with CR, the only predictor for increased likelihood of developing very late CINV was pre-chemotherapy (anticipatory) nausea (adjusted odds ratio = 0.65–0.50 for no CINV events on cycles 3 and 4).

Conclusion

The high anti-emetic efficacy seen with the NEPA regimen in the first cycle was maintained over multiple cycles of adjuvant AC for breast cancer. Preliminary evidence also suggests that patients achieving a CR during the overall period gain high protection even against very late CINV events in each chemotherapy cycle.

Trial registration

This trial was retrospectively registered at Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (NCT03862144) on 05/Mar/2019.

Impact of dexamethasone-sparing regimens on delayed nausea caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a meta-analysis of randomised evidence

Background

Nausea can be particularly prominent during the delayed period. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the available randomised evidence to assess the average effect of palonosetron plus one-day dexamethasone (DEX; also called the DEX-sparing strategy) compared with palonosetron plus 3-day DEX for control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), focusing on delayed nausea.

Methods

Eligible studies were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. Data on acute and delayed CINV were collected. Efficacy end points were complete response (CR; no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication), complete protection (CP; CR plus no clinically significant nausea), and total control (TC; CR plus no nausea) during the delayed period (days 2–5 after chemotherapy initiation). All randomised studies comparing palonosetron plus single-dose DEX (with or without another active agent) on day 1 followed by either no further DEX or additional DEX doses (both alone or in combination with another active agent) qualified.

Results

Of 864 citations screened, 8 studies with 1970 patients were included in the meta-analysis. During the delayed period, the combined odds ratio (OR) for all comparisons was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–1.12) for CR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71–1.03) for CP, and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.77–1.11) for TC in patients undergoing moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy (AC). The absolute risk difference (RD) computations for all end points in the delayed period did not exceed the threshold of − 4% (range, − 1% to − 4%). The effect was similar in subgroups defined by various study design parameters. The absolute RD computations in the acute period did not exceed the threshold of 1% (range, 0 to 1%). For one-day vs. 3-day DEX, numbers needed to be treated in order for one additional patient to not experience CR, CP and TC over the delayed period were 100, 25 and 50, respectively.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates that DEX-sparing regimens do not cause any significant loss in protection against not only vomiting but also nausea induced by single-day MEC or AC during the delayed period. These data should lead clinicians to optimise use of prophylactic DEX in clinical practice.

Effect of palonosetron and dexamethasone administration on the prevention of gastrointestinal symptoms in hepatic arterial chemoembolization with epirubicin

PURPOSE

There are several studies on premedication to prevent postembolization syndromes which occurs after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), but the medication to be used is still not established. This study aimed to examine the effect of palonosetron and dexamethasone on the prevention of gastrointestinal symptoms induced by TACE.

METHODS

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who were treated with TACE with epirubicin were retrospectively evaluated. The complete response rate of antiemetic drugs and incidence and severity of gastrointestinal symptoms were compared between the antiemetic group (AE group), which includes 51 patients prophylactically administered with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone 9.9 mg intravenously before TACE on day 1 and dexamethasone 6.6 mg intravenously on days 2 and 3, and control group with 101 patients without antiemetic premedication.

RESULTS

Complete response rate in the entire evaluation period was significantly higher in the AE group compared with that in the control group. In the acute phase, the incidence and severity of nausea, vomiting, and anorexia significantly decreased in the AE group, but only anorexia improved in the delay phase. Additionally, postembolization syndromes, such as abdominal pain and fever, were significantly attenuated in the AE group; however, constipation worsened in this group.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication of palonosetron and dexamethasone significantly prevents the incidence and reduces the severity of gastrointestinal symptoms especially in the acute phase. Further studies will be needed to determine the most recommended 5-HT₃ antagonist or dosage of dexamethasone in establishing the optimal antiemetic regimen.

One-Day Versus Three-Day Dexamethasone in Combination with Palonosetron for the Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data-Based Meta-Analysis

Chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting are common adverse effects associated with the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs. This article evaluates differences in complete response rates and other antiemetic outcomes in dexamethasone‐spacing regimens.

Background.

A dexamethasone‐sparing regimen consisting of palonosetron plus 1‐day dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been studied previously. Here, we evaluate the noninferiority of the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen in overall antiemetic control using a meta‐analysis based on individual patient data (IPD).

Materials and Methods.

We conducted a systematic review for randomized trials reporting CINV outcomes for the comparison of palonosetron plus 1‐day dexamethasone (d1 arm) versus the same regimen followed by dexamethasone on days 2–3 after chemotherapy (d3 arm) in chemotherapy‐naïve adult patients undergoing either moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)‐containing chemotherapy. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched electronically. A manual search was also conducted. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the overall 5‐day study period. The noninferiority margin was set at −8.0% (d1 arm−d3 arm).

Results.

Five studies (n = 1,194) were eligible for analysis and all IPD was collected. In the overall study period, the d1 arm showed noninferiority to the d3 arm for CR as well as complete control (pooled risk difference in CR rate − 1.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −7.1 to 4.0%, I² = 0%; in complete control rate − 2.4%, 95% CI −7.7 to 2.9%, I² = 0%). There was no significant interaction between dexamethasone regimen and risk factors (type of chemotherapy, sex, age, and alcohol consumption).

Conclusion.

This IPD meta‐analysis indicates that the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall antiemetic control in patients undergoing MEC or AC‐containing chemotherapy, irrespective of known risk factors for CINV.

Implications for Practice.

Although dexamethasone in combination with other antiemetic agents has been used to prevent chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), it is of clinical importance to minimize total dose of dexamethasone in patients undergoing multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy. This individual‐patient‐data meta‐analysis from five randomized controlled trials (1,194 patients) demonstrated a noninferiority of the dexamethasone‐sparing regimen for complete response and complete control of CINV. The outcomes were comparable across patients with different characteristics. These findings thus help physicians minimize use of the steroid and further reduce the burden of dexamethasone‐related side effects in patients undergoing multiple consecutive courses of emetogenic chemotherapy.

A Phase 1 Assessment of the QT Interval in Healthy Adults Following Exposure to Rolapitant, a Cancer Supportive Care Antiemetic

This 2-part study evaluated the QT/QTc prolongation potential and safety and pharmacokinetics of the antiemetic rolapitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist. Part 1 was a randomized, placebo-controlled single-dose-escalation study assessing the safety of a single high dose of rolapitant. Part 2 was a randomized, placebo- and positive-controlled, double-blind parallel-group study including 4 treatment arms: rolapitant at the highest safe dose established in part 1, placebo, moxifloxacin 400 mg (positive control), and rolapitant at the presumed therapeutic dose (180 mg). Among 184 adults, rolapitant was absorbed following oral administration under fasting conditions, with a median T_max of 4 to 6 hours (range, 2-8 hours) and was safe at all doses up to 720 mg. No differences in mean change in QTcF were observed between placebo and rolapitant from baseline or at any point. At any point, the upper bound of the confidence interval for the mean difference between placebo and rolapitant was no greater than 4.4 milliseconds, and the mean difference between placebo and rolapitant was no greater than 1.7 milliseconds, suggesting an insignificant change in QTc with rolapitant. Rolapitant is safe and does not prolong the QT interval at doses up to 720 mg relative to placebo in healthy adults.

Effects of palonosetron for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Background

The preemptive multimodal pain protocols used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often cause emesis postoperatively. We investigated whether palonosetron prophylaxis reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk patients after TKA.

Methods

We randomized 120 female patients undergoing TKA to receive either palonosetron (0.075 mg, intravenous) or no antiemetic prophylaxis (0.9% saline, control group). All patients were given spinal anesthesia, a continuous femoral nerve block, and fentanyl-based intravenous patient controlled analgesia. Patients undergoing staged bilateral TKA were assigned to one group for the first knee and the other group for the second knee. The overall incidence of PONV, the incidences of both nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea, complete response, requirement for rescue antiemetics, pain level, opioid consumption, and satisfaction scores were evaluated during three periods: 0–2, 2–24, and 24–48 h postoperatively. We also compared PONV and pain between the first and second TKA.

Results

The incidence of PONV during the first 48 h was lower in the palonosetron group compared with the controls (22 vs. 41%, p = 0.028), especially 2–24 h after surgery, as was the nausea and vomiting respectively. The severity of nausea was lower in the palonosetron group (p = 0.010). The complete response rate (93 vs. 73%, p = 0.016) and satisfaction score (84 ± 12 vs. 79 ± 15, p = 0.032) were higher in the palonosetron group during 2–24 h after surgery. Patients who underwent a second operation complained of more severe pain, and consumed more opioids than those of the first operation. There was no difference in the incidence of PONV between the first and second operations.

Conclusions

Palonosetron prophylaxis reduced the incidence and severity of PONV in high-risk patients managed with multimodal pain protocol for 48 h, notably 2–24 h after TKA.

Palonosetron compared with ondansetron in pediatric cancer patients: multicycle analysis of a randomized Phase III study

Aim: To investigate across multiple cycles the efficacy and safety of palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC). Patients & methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 10, 20 μg/kg palonosetron or 3 × 150 μg/kg ondansetron for up to four cycles of HEC/MEC. Results: In all on-study chemotherapy cycles, complete response rates were higher in patients in the 20 μg/kg palonosetron group than the ondansetron group. Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between the palonosetron 20 μg/kg and ondansetron groups. Conclusion: Over four cycles of HEC/MEC, 20 μg/kg palonosetron was an efficacious and safe treatment for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients.

Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of the use of NEPA for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in Italy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficiency of resources allocation and sustainability of the use of netupitant+palonosetron (NEPA) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis assuming the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published Markov model was adapted to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio of NEPA compared with aprepitant (APR) + palonosetron (PALO), fosaprepitant (fAPR) + PALO, APR + ondansetron (ONDA), fAPR + ONDA in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with APR + PALO and fAPR + PALO in patients receiving a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).

SETTING

Oncology hospital department in Italy.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to determine the impact of NEPA on the budget of the Italian NHS on a 5-day time horizon, corresponding to the acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis phases. Direct medical costs considered were related to antiemetic drugs, adverse events management, CINV episodes management. Clinical and quality of life data referred to previously published works. The budget impact analysis considered the aforementioned therapies plus PALO alone (for HEC and MEC) on a 5-year time horizon, comparing two scenarios: one considering the use of NEPA and one not considering its use.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and differential economic impact for the Italian NHS between the two scenarios considered.

RESULTS

NEPA is more effective and less expensive (dominant) compared with APR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), fAPR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), APR + ONDA (for HEC), fAPR + ONDA (for HEC). The use of NEPA would lead to a 5-year cost decrease of €63.7 million (€42.7 million for HEC and €20.9 million for MEC).

CONCLUSIONS

NEPA allows an efficient allocation of resources for the Italian NHS and it is sustainable, leading to a cost decrease compared with a scenario which does not consider its use.

Palonosetron-Induced Ventricular Tachycardia in a Patient Receiving Cancer Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the major and most distressing adverse effects of cancer chemotherapy. It is treated with various antiemetic regimens, of which one class of drugs is 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RA). Palonosetron, a potent antiemetic, is a second generation 5-HT3 RA. All 5-HT3 antagonists, except palonosetron, have been reported to cause corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation and certain arrhythmias. Here, we report a case of palonosetron-induced ventricular tachycardia in a 45-year-old patient receiving cancer chemotherapy.

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.