Palonosetron in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy

Comparative Study Between Fosaprepitant and Palonosetron in the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Prospective, Randomized and Double-Blind Study

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the single use of fosaprepitant is not inferior to the use of palonosetron as antiemetic prophylaxis in the first 48 h after surgery in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Method: Eighty-eight nonsmoking women (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II) aged between 18 and 60 years who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy received 150 mg of fosaprepitant or 75 μg of palonosetron, administered intravenously after the induction of general anesthesia. Results: In the fosaprepitant group and in the palonosetron group, 13.6 and 18.2% of the patients, respectively, vomited in the first 48 h after surgery (p = 0.560). There were no differences between groups in the total frequency and intensity of nausea, number of complete responders, need for rescue medication, time required for the first rescue medication dose or number of adverse events. Conclusion: The administration of a single dose of fosaprepitant after the induction of anesthesia was as effective as the administration of a single dose of palonosetron for the prophylaxis of vomiting in the first 48 h after surgery in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Effects of Palonosetron on Nausea and Vomiting Induced by Multiple-Day Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Study

Patients who undergo multiple-day chemotherapy sessions experience hard-to-treat nausea and vomiting. Currently, there is no effective standard treatment for this condition. This study compared the preventive effect of first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT₃ RAs) and second-generation 5-HT₃ RAs palonosetron in multiple-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The design of this study was a retrospective case-control study of patients who received a five-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy and were treated with aprepitant, dexamethasone, granisetron, and ramosetron or palonosetron. The patients were divided into two groups: patients given granisetron and ramosetron (the first-generation group), and those given palonosetron (palonosetron group). The percentage of patients with a complete response or total control was assessed. They were divided into three phases: 0-216 h (overall phase), 0-120 h (remedial phase), and 120-216 h (after phase). The remedial phase was further divided into 0-24 h (early phase) and 24-120 h (later phase). Moreover, the nutritional status of each patient was assessed by noting the patients' total calorie-intake per day and total parenteral nutrition. First-generation 5-HT₃ RAs and palonosetron were used for treatment in 18 and 28 patients, respectively. The complete response rate and caloric oral intake of the later phase were higher in the palonosetron group than in the first-generation group. We conclude that palonosetron treatment was more effective than first-generation 5-HT₃ RAs in controlling multiple-day chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Randomized open-label phase II trial of 5-day aprepitant plus ondansetron compared to ondansetron alone in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea-vomiting (CINV) in glioma patients receiving adjuvant temozolomide

PURPOSE

CINV remains a distressing side effect experienced by glioma patients receiving multi-day temozolomide therapy, in spite of guideline-based antiemetic therapy with selective serotonin-receptor-antagonists. Antiemetic research with aprepitant has routinely excluded glioma patients. In this randomized open-label phase II study, use of a nonstandard 5-day regimen of aprepitant for glioma patients was investigated.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-six glioma patients receiving their first cycle of adjuvant temozolomide (150-200 mg/m2/day × 5 days every 28 days) were randomized to Arm-A (ondansetron 8 mg days 1-5 with aprepitant day 1: 125 mg, days 2-5: 80 mg) or Arm-B (ondansetron). Randomization was stratified by tumor grade and number of prior chemotherapy regimens. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving complete control (CC), defined as no emetic episode or antiemetic rescue medication over the 7-day study period. Secondary endpoints included CINV efficacy in the acute phase (≤ 24 h) and delayed phase (days 2-7), as well as safety and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

Patients were 61% male, 97% white, 48% with KPS > 90%, 60% non-smokers, mean age 54, 92% with low alcohol use, and 46% with a CINV history. The CC was 58.6% (Arm-A) and 54.5% (Arm-B). Acute-complete response (CR) rates, defined as CC on day 1 in Arm-A and -B, were 97.1% and 87.9%, respectively (p = 0.056). Treatment-related toxicities were mild or moderate in severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant plus ondansetron may increase acute-CR, may have benefit regarding CINV's effect on QoL, and is safe for 5-day temozolomide compared to ondansetron. This study provides no evidence that aprepitant increases CC rate over ondansetron alone.

Analysis of Dietary Intake during Consecutive-Day Chemotherapy for Bone and Soft-Tissue Sarcomas

Background

Bone and soft tissue sarcomas are commonly treated with consecutive-day chemotherapy regimens consisting of multiple anticancer agents. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a serious adverse effect of these regimens and may result in decreased energy intake during chemotherapy. Decreased energy intake may lead to undernutrition and may cause adverse effects on patient quality of life and survival.

Methods

Patients with bone and soft tissue sarcomas who received consecutive-day chemotherapy were retrospectively evaluated. CINV and dietary energy intake were assessed, as well as the occurrences of hiccups and constipation during chemotherapy.

Results

A total of 13 patients, 10 males and 3 females, with a total 16 chemotherapy courses were included in the study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis. The CINV control rate, defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy, gradually decreased from chemotherapy day 1 (94%) to day 5 (75%). Four patients experienced emesis, two of whom had been treated with a cisplatin-containing regimen. Decreased dietary energy intake was possibly associated with CINV during chemotherapy. Anorexia was grade 2 except for one case of grade 3. The incidences of hiccups and constipation were high on days 3–5.

Conclusion

Antiemetic prophylaxis treatment did not prevent emesis due to consecutive-day chemotherapy, especially with cisplatin-containing regimens, in patients with bone and soft-tissue tumors. Dietary energy intake decreased during chemotherapy, and this appeared to be associated with CINV. In addition, the incidence of hiccups and constipation increased during the course of consecutive-day chemotherapy regimens. Although these results are based on a small number of patients, it may be important to observe nutritional status during chemotherapy, as this may reflect a patient’s general condition. Nutritional counseling might be useful in supporting nutritional status in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

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.

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.