Comparison of Antiemetic Effectiveness of Palonosetron Versus Ondansetron in Patients on Cancer Chemotherapy: A Prospective Observational Study in South Indians

Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Palonosetron Hydrochloride in Preventing Nausea And Vomiting After TACE: A Retrospective Analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the mechanism of nausea and vomiting after TACE, and analyze the efficacy and safety of palonosetron hydrochloride in the prevention of nausea and vomiting after TACE.

METHODS

The data of 221 patients who underwent TACE in the Department of Intervention Therapy from August 2018 to August 2020 were collected. The patients were divided into two groups: those who did not use palonosetron hydrochloride before TACE (TACE group, N=116); and those who used palonosetron hydrochloride before TACE (TACE+palonosetron group, N=105). Primary study endpoint: The control rate of nausea and vomiting in the two groups at 0-24 h (acute), 24-120 h (delayed), and 0-120 h. Secondary Study Endpoints: Adverse events of palonosetron hydrochloride.

RESULTS

TACE group vs TACE+palonosetron group: 0-24 h, 74 vs. 44 patients with nausea (63.8% vs. 41.9%); 24-120 h, 50 vs. 16 patients with nausea (43.1% vs. 15.2%); 0-120 h after TACE, 81 vs. 50 patients with nausea (69.8% vs. 47.6%). 0-24 h, 52 vs. 26 patients with vomiting (44.8% vs. 24.8%); 24-120 h, 24 vs. 8 patients with vomiting (20.7% vs. 7.6%); 0-120 h after TACE, 64 vs. 26 patients with vomiting (55.2% vs. 24.8%). The incidence of nausea and vomiting after TACE was significantly lower in the TACE+palonosetron group than in the TACE group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron hydrochloride can significantly reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients after TACE, with exact effect and high safety.

Expert Consensus on Effective Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: An Indian Perspective

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most common and feared side effects in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Scientific evidence proves its detrimental impact on a patient's quality of life (QoL), treatment compliance, and overall healthcare cost. Despite the CINV-management landscape witnessing a radical shift with the introduction of novel, receptor-targeting antiemetic agents, this side effect remains a chink in the armor of a treating oncologist. Though global guidelines acknowledge patient-specific risk factors and chemotherapeutic agent emetogenic potential in CINV control, a "one-fit-for-all" approach cannot be followed across all geographies. Hence, in a pioneering attempt, India-based oncologists conveyed easily implementable, region-specific, consensus-based statements on CINV prevention and management. These statements resulted from integrating the analysis of scientific evidence and guidelines on CINV by the experts, with their clinical experience. The statements will strengthen decision-making abilities of Indian oncologists/clinicians and help in achieving consistency in CINV prevention and management in the country. Furthermore, this document shall lay the foundation for developing robust Indian guidelines for CINV prevention and control.

Impact of Ondansetron on Withdrawal Signs, Fentanyl Requirement and Pain Relief in Opioid-addicted Patients under General Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists such as ondansetron have been investigated to attenuate opioid withdrawal signs in studies.

OBJECTIVE

Therefore, we designed a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial to evaluate this effect on opioid-addicted patients who were admitted to the orthopedic department for surgery due to bone fractures.

METHODS

Male adults who were addicted to opioids, aged 18 to 79 years were enrolled (n=96) and randomized into intravenous doses (4 & 8 mg) of ondansetron (n=32) and placebo (n=32). The vital signs, withdrawal symptoms and the frequency requirement of fentanyl were recorded during anesthesia, and opioid (pethidine) analgesic was received during the recovery period. Outcome parameters were analyzed for reduction of withdrawal symptoms in addicted adults.

RESULTS

We indicated that ondansetron demonstrated significant differences with few vital outcomes including systolic blood pressure (SBP) 20 (SBP3) and 50 min (SBP4) after injection of ondansetron during the period of surgery. Ondansetron could also significantly reduce the frequency requirement of fentanyl at 20 min (dose 3) in general anesthesia. Furthermore, requirement for further administration of opioid analgesic drugs such as pethidine was significantly reduced in the ondansetron groups. Objective opioid withdrawal scale (OOWS) results indicated that few clinical parameters including tremor, hot and cold flushes and anxiety were significantly attenuated in addicted patients who received ondansetron.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated supporting evidence for the beneficial treatment of ondansetron for the control of withdrawal symptoms and pain in addicted patients, and more clinical studies are suggested in this regard.