Slow-release granisetron (APF530) versus palonosetron for chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting: analysis by American Society of Clinical Oncology emetogenicity criteria

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK₁ receptor antagonists, 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC.

MAIN RESULTS

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors, or 5-HT₃ inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researched and assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK₁ and 5-HT₃ inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT₃ inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT₃ inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

Formulation optimization and in vitro characterization of granisetron-loaded polylactic-co-glycolic acid microspheres prepared by a dropping-in-liquid emulsification technique

PURPOSE

Traditional dosage forms of granisetron (GRN) decrease patient compliance associated with repeated drug administration because of the short half-life of the drug.

METHODS

In this study, novel GRN-loaded polylactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) sustained release microspheres were prepared for the first time via a dropping-in-liquid emulsification technique. The effect of various factors, such as pH of the outer phase, Tween80, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) concentrations, and hardening process, on the encapsulation efficiency (EE), drug loading (DL), and particle size of microspheres were extensively studied. The physicochemical properties, including drug release, surface morphology, crystallinity, thermal changes, and molecular interactions, were also studied.

RESULTS

GRN has a pH-dependent solubility and showed a remarkably high solubility under an acidic condition. The EE of the alkaline medium (pH 8) was higher than that of the acidic medium (pH 4.0). EE and DL decreased in the presence of Tween80 in the outer phase, whereas EE significantly increased during hardening. The particle size of microspheres was not affected by PVA and Tween80 concentrations, but it was influenced by PVA volume and hardening. X-ray diffraction and differential scanning calorimetry results showed that the physical state of the drug changed from a crystalline form to an amorphous form, thereby confirming that the drug was encapsulated into the PLGA matrix. Fourier transform-infrared spectroscopy confirmed that some molecular interactions occurred between the drug and the polymer. GRN-loaded PLGA microspheres showed sustained release profiles of over 90% on week 3.

CONCLUSION

GRN-loaded PLGA microspheres with sustained release were successfully prepared, and they exhibited a relatively high EE without Tween 80 as an emulsifier and with hardening process.

Real-world effectiveness of palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens: preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Aim: To evaluate real-world effectiveness of guideline-recommended palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy. Patients & methods: This retrospective analysis used records of adults receiving first-line chemotherapy and a three-drug palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for HEC or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for MEC (carboplatin). Results: A total of 1587 records were evaluated. For HEC and MEC, respectively, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occurred in 40 versus 44% of patient cycles (p = 0.01), and unscheduled iv. antiemetics in 41 versus 35% (p < 0.05). A total of 48% of HEC patients versus 42% of MEC patients had CINV-related clinic visits (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens may provide insufficient CINV control. Alternative regimens may improve patient quality of life and reduce healthcare resource utilization.

Hydration requirements in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy

AIM

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting diminishes quality of life and increases healthcare resource use. This retrospective medical records analysis evaluated hydration requirements with emetogenic chemotherapy.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Cancer patients received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), and antiemetics palonosetron or granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. Unscheduled hydration event rates were determined.

RESULTS

For 186 patients (92 palonosetron, 94 GERSC) overall, mean hydration rate was significantly higher with palonosetron (0.6 vs 0.2; p = 0.0005). Proportion of patients with ≥1 hydration event was significantly higher with palonosetron overall (54 vs 33%; p = 0.0033) and in cycles 2-4 and the HEC subgroup.

CONCLUSION

GERSC within a three-drug antiemetic regimen may reduce unscheduled hydration requirements with MEC or HEC.

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.

Hydration requirements with emetogenic chemotherapy: granisetron extended-release subcutaneous versus palonosetron

Aim: This retrospective analysis evaluated chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-related hydration needs with palonosetron or granisetron extended-release subcutaneous (GERSC), approved in 2016 for CINV prevention. Materials & methods: At a community practice, CINV-related hydration per chemotherapy cycle was determined following highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) and a guideline-recommended antiemetic regimen: NK-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and either palonosetron only, GERSC only, or palonosetron switched to GERSC. Results: Palonosetron-only patients (n = 93) had a significantly higher mean (standard deviation) hydration rate (0.9 [1.1]) than GERSC-only patients (n = 91; 0.3 [0.6]; p < 0.0001). Switched patients’ (n = 48) hydration rates were significantly higher in the HEC subgroup with palonosetron (0.7 [1.2]) versus GERSC (0.5 [1.0]; p = 0.028). Conclusion: GERSC in a three-drug antiemetic regimen may reduce hydration needs following HEC or MEC.

[Formula: see text]

Granisetron Extended-Release Injection: A Review in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

An extended-release (ER) subcutaneously injectable formulation of the first-generation 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist granisetron is now available in the USA (Sustol^®), where it is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide combination chemotherapy regimens in adults. Granisetron ER is administered as a single subcutaneous injection and uses an erosion-controlled drug-delivery system to allow prolonged granisetron release. Primary endpoint data from phase III studies after an initial cycle of chemotherapy indicate that, when used as part of an antiemetic regimen, granisetron ER injection is more effective than intravenous ondansetron in preventing delayed CINV following highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); is noninferior to intravenous palonosetron in preventing both acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC; and is similar, but not superior, to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The benefits of granisetron ER were seen in various patient subgroups, including those receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based HEC, and (in an extension of one of the studies) over multiple MEC or HEC cycles. Granisetron ER injection is generally well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of ondansetron or palonosetron. Thus, granisetron ER injection expands the options for preventing both acute and delayed CINV in adults with cancer receiving MEC or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based HEC.

APF530 (granisetron injection extended-release) in a three-drug regimen for delayed CINV in highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Aim: APF530, extended-release granisetron, provides sustained release for ≥5 days for acute- and delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We compared efficacy and safety of APF530 versus ondansetron for delayed CINV after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), following a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen. Methods: HEC patients received APF530 500 mg subcutaneously or ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously, with dexamethasone and fosaprepitant. Primary end point was delayed-phase complete response (no emesis or rescue medication). Results: A higher percentage of APF530 versus ondansetron patients had delayed-phase complete response (p = 0.014). APF530 was generally well tolerated; treatment-emergent adverse event incidence was similar across arms, mostly mild-to-moderate injection-site reactions. Conclusion: APF530 versus the standard three-drug regimen provided superior control of delayed-phase CINV following HEC. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02106494.