Comparative review of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Effect and Mechanism of Herbal Medicines on Cisplatin-Induced Anorexia

Cisplatin is a well-known chemotherapeutic agent used to treat various types of cancers; however, it can also induce anorexia, which results in reduced food intake, loss of body weight, and lower quality of life. Although drugs such as megestrol acetate and cyproheptadine are used to decrease this severe feeding disorder, they can also induce side effects, such as diarrhea and somnolence, which limit their widespread use. Various types of herbal medicines have long been used to prevent and treat numerous gastrointestinal tract diseases; however, to date, no study has been conducted to analyze and summarize their effects on cisplatin-induced anorexia. In this paper, we analyze 12 animal studies that used either a single herbal medicine extract or mixtures thereof to decrease cisplatin-induced anorexia. Among the herbal medicines, Ginseng Radix was the most used, as it was included in seven studies, whereas both Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma and Angelicae Gigantis Radix were used in four studies. As for the mechanisms of action, the roles of serotonin and its receptors, cytokines, white blood cells, ghrelin, and leptin were investigated. Based on these results, we suggest that herbal medicines could be considered a useful treatment method for cisplatin-induced anorexia.

Pharmacokinetics and safety evaluation of oral Palonosetron in Chinese healthy volunteers: A phase 1, open-label, randomized, cross-over study

PURPOSE

Palonosetron hydrochloride is a specific 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and is a known chemical entity currently registered in the oral and IV forms in several countries worldwide.

METHODS

Single-center, single-dose, 3-treatment, open-label, randomized, 3-period, phase-I cross-over study, conducted in 18 individuals (16 males and 2 females). The primary objective was to assess the pharmacokinetic profile of Palonosetron 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75mg, after a single, oral administration in Chinese male and female healthy volunteers.

RESULTS

After administration of a single oral dose of 0.25mg, 0.5mg, or 0.75mg palonosetron in Chinese male and female healthy subjects, plasma palonosetron concentrations reached maximum values (C_max) of 673 ± 151 pg/mL, 1330 ± 258 pg/mL, and 1990 ± 490 pg/mL, respectively, at 3-5 h (t_max). The plasma elimination half-life for 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 mg of palonosetron was 41.8±9.72 hours, 44.6±8.59 hours and 42.3±8.51 hours, respectively. Single oral doses of 0.25mg, 0.5mg, or 0.75mg palonosetron were safe and well tolerated among all the 18 subjects involved.

CONCLUSIONS

The PK of palonosetron was found to be linear in the dose range of 0.25 to 0.75 mg. Oral palonosetron in doses up to 0.75 mg was well tolerated in healthy Chinese subjects. The PK and safety data obtained from this study were similar to previous phase I studies with IV palonosetron.

Targeting the 5-HT system: Potential side effects

Targeting the serotonin (5-HT) system is no simple task: there are at least 15 5-HT receptors, in addition to a number of transporters and metabolizing enzymes. Multiple 5-HT receptor variants exist due to genetic variations and/or post translational modifications, splice variants or editing variants. Some receptors may form homo and heteromers. The 5-HT system is targeted by multiple drugs to treat a variety of diseases. Given the homology amongst the 5-HT and neighbouring receptor classes, only few drugs are actually selective for a single target. In fact, many 5-HT drugs act on a combination of targets, i.e. several receptors and/or transporters or enzymes. For instance, a number of antidepressants or antipsychotics act on 5-HT and other transmitter systems. Recently developed drugs may show target selectivity by design, based on the current state of knowledge, whereas many older compounds hit multiple targets since they were developed using phenotypic screens, as was done well into the 1980's. Ergot analogues, antipsychotics or antidepressants, fall into this category. As our knowledge developed over the last 25-30 years, some targets have very well-defined liabilities: for instance, 5HT_2B or 5-HT_2A receptor agonists, will produce valvulopathies or hallucinations, respectively, whereas 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, may lead to constipation. This short review will be limited in scope as there are multiple targets and even more compounds to discuss. This article is part of the special issue entitled 'Serotonin Research: Crossing Scales and Boundaries'.

Latest Update on Prevention of Acute Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common cause of acute morbidity that impacts quality of life in children receiving cancer treatment. Here, we review the evolution of CINV prophylaxis guidelines in children, with an emphasis on the literature published in the last 5 years, to bring the reader up to date.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have led to the adoption of the "triple therapy" regimen of antiemetic prophylaxis (a 5-HT3 antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin-1 antagonist) as the backbone of recommendations for the prevention of CINV in children. Areas of new data include the addition of aprepitant and inclusion of palonosetron as a non-inferior 5-HT3 antagonist. In addition, there are emerging pediatric data informing patient-derived risk factors associated with CINV risk and classification of antineoplastic drugs based on emetogenicity. Several recent pediatric studies have shaped published guidelines for CINV prophylaxis in children.

A unique schedule of palonosetron, ondansetron, and dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy

Myeloablative chemotherapy administered prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) is associated with a significant amount of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We conducted a phase II trial to assess the safety, efficacy, and impact on quality of life when palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg combined with dexamethasone were given on the final or only day of myeloablative chemotherapy for auto-SCT. The primary end point of this study was the incidence of achieving a delayed CINV complete response defined as no emetic episode and no use of rescue medications during the 24-120 h period post chemotherapy. Eighty-five patients were enrolled in the study and received PAL. A delayed CINV complete response was achieved in 15% of patients. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no associated differences between age, gender, diagnosis, or regimen. By day 5 after PAL, the mean nausea severity was 0.91 ± 2.45 vs. 0.09 ± 1.58 at baseline (p = 0.012). Quality of life measurements demonstrated similar quality of life between baseline and day 3. By day 6 however, nausea alone had a statistically significant impact on quality of life. In our study, PAL controlled nausea severity and sustained quality of life, but further strategies are needed to control delayed CINV associated with the auto-SCT process.

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.

Assessment of drug therapy problems among patients with cervical cancer at Kenyatta National Hospital, Kenya

Background

Although cervical cancer is preventable, it is still the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the world. Further, it is estimated that around 5–10% of hospital admissions are due to drug related problems (DRPs), of which 50% are avoidable. In cancer therapy, there is an immense potential for DRPs due to the high toxicity of most chemotherapeutic regimens. Hence, this study sought to assess DRPs among patients with cervical cancer at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH).

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the oncology units of KNH. A total of 81 study participants were recruited through simple random sampling. Data were collected from medical records and interviewing patients. The appropriateness of medical therapy was evaluated by comparing with National Compressive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology practice guideline of cervical cancer treatment protocol. The degree of adherence was determined using eight-item Morisky medication adherence scale. The likelihood of drug interaction was assessed using Medscape, Micromedex and Epocrates drug interaction checkers. The data were entered in Microsoft Excel and analysed using statistical software STATA version 13.0. Descriptive statistics such as mean, percent and frequency were used to summarise patients’ characteristics. Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression were used to investigate the potential predictors of DRPs.

Result

A total of 215 DRPs were identified from 76 patients, translating to a prevalence of 93.8% and a mean of 2.65 ± 1.22 DRPs. The predominant proportion of DRPs (48.2%) was identified in patients who had been treated with chemoradiation regimens. Adverse drug reactions 56(69.1%) and drug interactions 38(46.9%) were the most prevalent DRPs. Majority (67.9%) of the study population were adherent to their treatment regimens. Forgetfulness 18(69.2%), expensive medications 4(15.4%) and side effects of medications 4(15.4%) were the main reasons for medication non-adherence. Patients with advanced stage cervical cancer were 15.4 times (AOR = 15.4, 95% CI = 1.3–185.87, p = 0.031) more likely to have DRPs as compared to patients with early stage disease.

Conclusion

Adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, and need of additional drug therapy were the most common DRPs identified among cervical cancer patients. Advanced stage cervical cancer was the only predictor of DRPs.

Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life and is perceived by patients as a major adverse effect of the treatment. This review summarizes the safety and efficacy of current antiemetic agents for the prevention of CINV in children. Information on antiemetic prophylaxis for CINV in children was obtained from a literature review of current peer-reviewed articles and recent international guidelines. The literature review and the international antiemetic guidelines provide recommendations for use of specific antiemetics in children based on the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy. 5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists have been safe and effective in the prevention of acute emesis with a few patients experiencing mild headache. No adequate studies have been conducted to date for specific recommendations for the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting in children. The neurokinin (NK)-₁ receptor antagonist aprepitant has been approved by the US FDA for use in children of a specific age and weight. No studies for the NK₁ receptor antagonists netupitant and rolapitant in children have been conducted. Olanzapine, an antipsychotic, has been shown to be safe and effective in preventing nausea and emesis in adult patients receiving chemotherapy. Its use in children has been limited to children with poor control of CINV; more studies are necessary in this population. In conclusion, practitioners should follow international antiemetic guidelines to provide patients with the specific antiemetics in the recommended dose for the highest possible quality of care.

NEPA, a new fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron, is a cost-effective intervention for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the UK

Background

The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, an oral fixed combination netupitant (NETU, 300 mg) and palonosetron (PA, 0.5 mg) compared with aprepitant and palonosetron (APPA) or palonosetron (PA) alone, to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients undergoing treatment with highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC or MEC) in the UK.

Scope

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were undertaken to compare NEPA with currently recommended anti-emetics. Relative effectiveness was estimated over the acute (day 1) and overall treatment (days 1–5) phases, taking complete response (CR, no emesis and no rescue medication) and complete protection (CP, CR and no more than mild nausea [VAS scale <25 mm]) as primary efficacy outcomes. A three-health-state Markov cohort model, including CP, CR and incomplete response (no CR) for HEC and MEC, was constructed. A five-day time horizon and UK NHS perspective were adopted. Transition probabilities were obtained by combining the response rates of CR and CP from NEPA trials and odds ratios from the meta-analysis. Utilities of 0.90, 0.70 and 0.24 were defined for CP, CR and incomplete response, respectively. Costs included medications and management of CINV-related events and were obtained from the British National Formulary and NHS Reference Costs. The expected budgetary impact of NEPA was also evaluated.

Findings

In HEC patients, the NEPA strategy was more effective than APPA (quality-adjusted life days [QALDs] of 4.263 versus 4.053; incremental emesis-free and CINV-free days of +0.354 and +0.237, respectively) and was less costly (£80 versus £124), resulting in NEPA being the dominant strategy. In MEC patients, NEPA was cost effective, cumulating in an estimated 0.182 extra QALDs at an incremental cost of £6.65 compared with PA.

Conclusion

Despite study limitations (study setting, time horizon, utility measure), the results suggest NEPA is cost effective for preventing CINV associated with HEC and MEC in the UK.

Adherence to guidelines on prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the National Cancer Institute, Sudan

<strong>Objective</strong>: To evaluate the adherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and assess the outcomes of the prescribed antiemetic drugs.<br /> <strong>Methods</strong>: This prospective, observational study enrolled chemotherapy-naive cancer patients who were admitted to the National Cancer Institute between May and July 2015 for intravenous chemotherapy. Patient’s demographic data, chemotherapy protocols and types of antiemetic drugs were collected by reviewing patients’ files, chemotherapy prescription forms and interviewing the patients.<br /> <strong>Results</strong>: The data revealed that 90% of pre-chemotherapy antiemetic prescriptions did not adhere to antiemetic guidelines. The trends of non-adherence included an overuse of ondansetron (14%), under-prescribing of dexamethasone (16%) and corticosteroid duplication (14%). Regarding antiemetic use for the prevention of delayed emesis, the data showed that 90% of antiemetic prescriptions were non-adherent with ASCO guidelines, with overuse of ondansetron (20%) and metoclopramide (37%) and lack of dexamethasone prescriptions (80%) on days 2 and 3 being the most frequently reported trends. The percentage of patients with complete response (no emesis or rescue therapy) over 5 days post chemotherapy was 36%.<br /> <strong>Conclusion</strong>: The study indicated an extremely low adherence rate to ASCO guidelines for antiemetic prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Non-adherence included a trend of both underuse and overuse of indicated antiemetic medications.

Contrasting effects of 5-HT3 receptor stimulation of the nucleus accumbens or ventral tegmentum on food intake in the rat

Although serotonin (5-HT) signaling is known to regulate food intake and energy homeostasis, the roles of the 5-HT₃ receptor in feeding processes have been elusive. 5-HT₃ receptors are found throughout mesolimbic circuitry that promote feeding not only in response to hunger, but also to the palatable and rewarding properties of food. These experiments examined if stimulation or blockade of the 5-HT₃ receptor of the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) or ventral tegmentum affected food intake in the rat in response to hunger or the presence of a palatable diet. Rats (N=6-9/group) received bilateral injections of the 5-HT₃ agonist m-chlorophenylbiguanide hydrochloride (mCPBG; at 0.0, 10.0, or 20.0μg/0.5μl/side) or the 5-HT₃ antagonist ondansetron hydrochloride (at 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, or 5.0μg/0.5μl/side) into either the NAcc or the ventral tegmentum. NAcc 5-HT₃ receptor stimulation significantly increased 2-h food intake in food-deprived animals offered rat chow and in a separate group of unrestricted rats offered a sweetened fat diet. In contrast to the feeding increase seen with NAcc treatments, stimulation of 5-HT₃ receptors of the ventral tegmentum significantly reduced food and water intake in food-restricted animals; reductions of intake in non-restricted rats offered the palatable diet did not approach significance. Blockade of the 5-HT₃ receptor had no effect on feeding in either brain region. These data support a functional role for serotonergic signaling in the mesolimbic pathway on motivated behavior, and demonstrate that 5-HT₃ receptors differentially modulate food consumption in a region-dependent manner.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of serotonin receptor antagonists in patients undergoing chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although serotonin (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists are effective in reducing nausea and vomiting, they may be associated with increased cardiac risk. Our objective was to examine the comparative safety and effectiveness of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists (e.g., dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron, palonosetron, tropisetron) alone or combined with steroids for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until December 2015 for studies comparing 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists with each other or placebo in chemotherapy patients. The search results were screened, data were abstracted, and risk of bias was appraised by pairs of reviewers, independently. Random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted.

RESULTS

After screening 9226 citations and 970 full-text articles, we included 299 studies (n = 58,412 patients). None of the included studies reported harms for active treatment versus placebo. For NMAs on the risk of arrhythmia (primary outcome; three randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 627 adults) and mortality (secondary outcome; eight RCTs, 4823 adults), no statistically significant differences were observed between agents. A NMA on the risk of QTc prolongation showed a significantly greater risk for dolasetron + dexamethasone versus ondansetron + dexamethasone (four RCTs, 3358 children and adults, odds ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval 2.13-4.17). For NMAs on the number of patients without nausea (44 RCTs, 11,664 adults, 12 treatments), number of patients without vomiting (63 RCTs, 15,460 adults, 12 treatments), and number of patients without chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting (27 RCTs, 10,924 adults, nine treatments), all agents were significantly superior to placebo. For a NMA on severe vomiting (10 RCTs, 917 adults), all treatments decreased the risk, but only ondansetron and ramosetron were significantly superior to placebo. According to a rank-heat plot with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve results, palonosetron + steroid was ranked the safest and most effective agent overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Most 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were relatively safe when compared with each other, yet none of the studies compared active treatment with placebo for harms. However, dolasetron + dexamethasone may prolong the QTc compared to ondansetron + dexamethasone. All agents were effective for reducing risk of nausea, vomiting, and chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered at PROSPERO: ( CRD42013003564 ).

Management of platinum-based chemotherapy-induced acute nausea and vomiting: is there a superior serotonin receptor antagonist?

Objective. The last decade has witnessed the great impact of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor (5-HT3) antagonists in revolutionizing the management of platinum-based chemotherapy–induced acute nausea and vomiting (CINV). However, despite the availability of a variety of 5-HT3 antagonists, little data is published to support superiority of one drug over another, leaving the choice of serotonin receptor antagonist largely empirical. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines for management of chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting clearly endorse the use of serotonin receptor antagonist; however, no single agent is preferred over the rest.

Methods. Data for patients (n¼159) receiving platinum-based chemotherapy regimens were retrospectively collected. Patients getting 5-HT3 antagonists without steroids or those with known history of brain metastasis, gastroparesis, and intestinal obstruction were not eligible for the study. Patient characteristics including age, gender, primary diagnosis, history of heavy alcohol intake, chemotherapy regimen administered, number of cycles, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at the start of therapy were noted. Primary outcome was the complete control of platinum-induced acute nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcome measures included control of >grade 1 nausea or vomiting, comparison of two doses of dexamethasone, and antiemetic efficacy among various platinum drugs. National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0 was used to assess toxicity.

Results. A total of 126 patients received 369 cycles of platinum-based therapy. Dolasetron (n¼157), granisetron (n¼81), and ondansetron (n¼131) achieved complete control of vomiting in 89.8, 95.5, and 92.3% (p¼0.67) of cycles, respectively. Respectively, complete nausea control was observed in 68.1, 75.3 and, 69.4% (p¼0.50). Dexamethasone 20 mg was not superior to 10 mg in complete control of nausea and vomiting (p¼0.15 and p¼0.63, respectively). However, complete nausea control was significantly better in the subgroup of patients getting cisplatin-compared with carboplatin-based regimens (78.8% vs. 67.7%, p50.05).

Conclusion. No significant difference exists in the antiemetic efficacy of the three 5-HT3 antagonists studied in controlling CINV when administered in combination with dexamethasone. Choice of antiemetic regimen should therefore be based on drug cost.

Aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone versus palonosetron and dexamethasone for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer: a randomized crossover phase II trial (KDOG 1002)

We conducted a randomized trial to compare the safety and effectiveness of aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone (AGD) with those of palonosetron and dexamethasone (PD) in patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients with esophageal or gastric cancer who were scheduled to receive HEC including at least 60 mg/m of cisplatin as the first-line treatment were randomly assigned to receive AGD (oral aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-3; intravenous granisetron 3 mg on day 1; intravenous dexamethasone 6.6 mg on day 1 and oral dexamethasone 4 mg on days 2-3) or PD (intravenous palonosetron 0.75 mg on day 1; intravenous dexamethasone 13.2 mg on day 1 and oral dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2-3). The primary endpoint was a complete response during the overall study period (0-120 h after the start of chemotherapy) in the first cycle. Eighty-five patients were enrolled, and 84 were eligible. The complete response rate did not differ between the treatment groups, but the proportion of patients with no vomiting was significantly higher in the AGD group than in the PD group (81.4 vs. 58.5%; P=0.031). The results of a quality-of-life survey indicated that the proportion of patients with no or minimal impact on daily life in the vomiting domain was significantly higher in the AGD group (79.1 vs. 53.7%; P=0.020). The primary endpoint of complete response was not achieved, but AGD seems to be more effective than PD for the prevention of HEC-induced vomiting.

Control of nausea with palonosetron versus granisetron, both combined with dexamethasone, in patients receiving cisplatin- or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based regimens

Purpose

In a comparative phase 3 study involving 1114 Japanese patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), palonosetron (PALO) was found to be superior to granisetron (GRA) for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the delayed phase. This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy of PALO for the control of nausea.

Methods

The proportion of patients without nausea was assessed at 24-h intervals during the acute phase (0–24 h), delayed phase (24–120 h), and overall (0–120 h). No nausea rates were also evaluated by sex, type of chemotherapy (cisplatin or doxorubicin/epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide [AC/EC]), and age (<55 vs. ≥55 years). Nausea severity was categorized using a 4-point Likert scale (0 = no nausea to 3 = severe nausea).

Results

The proportion of patients without nausea was significantly higher in the PALO arm than in the GRA arm in the delayed phase (37.8 % vs. 27.2 %; p = 0.002) and overall (31.9 % vs. 25.0 %; p = 0.0117). When analyzed by stratification factors, the proportion of patients without nausea was significantly higher in the PALO arm in the delayed phase and overall in patients who were female, younger, or treated with cisplatin and in the delayed phase in patients who were older or treated with doxorubicin or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (all p < 0.05).

Conclusions

PALO was more effective than GRA in prophylaxis of HEC-induced nausea in the delayed phase and overall. In addition, PALO was more effective than GRA in young and female patients, who are at high risk of CINV, both in the delayed phase and overall.

Controlled transdermal iontophoresis for poly-pharmacotherapy: Simultaneous delivery of granisetron, metoclopramide and dexamethasone sodium phosphate in vitro and in vivo

Iontophoresis has been used to deliver small molecules, peptides and proteins into and across the skin. In principle, it provides a controlled, non-invasive method for poly-pharmacotherapy since it is possible to formulate and to deliver multiple therapeutic agents simultaneously from the anodal and cathodal compartments. The objective of this proof-of-principle study was to investigate the simultaneous anodal iontophoretic delivery of granisetron (GST) and metoclopramide (MCL) and cathodal iontophoresis of dexamethasone sodium phosphate (DEX-P). In addition to validating the hypothesis, these are medications that are routinely used in combination to treat chemotherapy-induced emesis. Two preliminary in vitro studies using porcine skin were performed: Study 1 - effect of formulation composition on anodal co-iontophoresis of GST and MCL and Study 2 - combined anodal iontophoresis of GST (10mM) and MCL (110 mM) and cathodal iontophoresis of DEX-P (40 mM). The results from Study 1 demonstrated the dependence of GST/MCL transport on the respective drug concentrations when co-iontophoresed at 0.3 mA·cm(-2). Although they possess similar physicochemical properties, MCL seemed to be a more efficient charge carrier (JMCL=0.0591∗CMCLvs JGST=0.0414∗CGST). In Study 2, MCL permeation was markedly superior to that of GST (2324.83 ± 307.85 and 209.83 ± 24.84 μg·cm(-2), respectively); this was consistent with the difference in their relative concentrations; DEX-P permeation was 336.94 ± 71.91 μg·cm(-2). The in vivo studies in Wistar rats (10mM GST, 110 mM MCL and 40 mM DEX-P (0.5 mA·cm(-2) for 5h with Ag/AgCl electrodes and salt bridges) demonstrated that significant drug levels were achieved rapidly for each drug. This was most noticeable for dexamethasone (DEX) where relatively constant plasma levels were obtained from the 1 to 5h time-points; DEX-P was not detected in the plasma since it was completely hydrolyzed to the active metabolite. The calculated input rates in vivo (k01) for GST, MCL and DEX were 0.45 ± 0.05, 3.29 ± 0.48 and 1.97 ± 0.38 μg·cm(-2) · min(-1), respectively. The study confirmed that iontophoresis provided a controlled method for the simultaneous administration of multiple therapeutic agents and that it could be of use for poly-pharmacotherapy in general and more specifically that it was able to deliver different drugs used in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced emesis.

Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are among the most frequently experienced toxic side-effects associated with chemotherapy. Although nausea and vomiting can result from surgery or radiotherapy, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is potentially the most severe and most distressing. Estimates regarding the incidence of CINV vary depending on the treatment administered and individual patient characteristics.The impact of CINV on quality of life (QoL) and daily activities is considerable. Pharmacological treatments are considered routine for CINV. Clinical guidelines now recommend that patients receiving moderate emetic chemotherapy (MEC) regimens be preferentially treated with palonosetron, the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, in combination with dexamethasone. In addition, it has shown that single-dose fosaprepitant is equivalent to the standard 3-day aprepitant regimen (the neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist). Despite these advances in antiemetic management, approximately 50% of patients receiving chemotherapy still experience nausea and/or vomiting. Further improvements are still desirable, particularly in the prevention and treatment of delayed CINV. Non-pharmacological interventions can be possible adjuncts to standard anti-emetic therapy. Using new technologies to collect patient-reported outcomes may improve the accuracy of assessment, provide a better picture of the patient's experience of these symptoms, and provide a means to simultaneously monitor symptoms, educate patients, and collect longitudinal data.

Comparing the effect of intravenous dexamethasone, intravenous ondansetron, and their combination on nausea and vomiting in cesarean section with spinal anesthesia

Background:

Nausea and vomiting are frequently seen in patients undergoing cesarean section (CS) under regional anesthesia. We aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron and dexamethasone combination with that of the use of each agent alone to decrease the incidence of postdelivery intra- and post-operative nausea and vomiting during CS under spinal anesthesia.

Materials and Methods:

A randomized, prospective, double-blind study was performed on 90 patients undergoing planned CS under spinal anesthesia. The patients received 4 mg ondansetron in Group O, 8 mg dexamethasone in Group D, and 4 mg ondansetron +8 mg dexamethasone in Group OD intravenously within 1–2 min after the umbilical cord was clamped. Frequency of postdelivery intra- and post-operative nausea and vomiting episodes was recorded.

Results:

A total of 90 eligible patients were included in the study. There were 30 patients in Group O, 30 patients in Group D, and 30 patients in Group OD. Intraoperative nausea in Group D was more than the other two groups. Postoperative nausea in group OD was lesser than the other two groups. Intraoperative vomiting in Group OD was lesser than the other two groups. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in postoperative vomiting (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

Combined use of dexamethasone and ondansetron for the same indication seems to increase the antiemetic efficacy.

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.

Transdermal granisetron versus palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, cross-over, active-controlled, and phase IV study

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron is the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) that has shown better efficacy than the first-generation 5-HT3RA for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS), a novel transdermal formulation, was developed to deliver granisetron continuously over 7 days. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of the GTDS to palonosetron for the control of CINV following MEC.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A total of 196 patients were randomized to GP or PG group. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, cross-over, active-controlled, Phase IV study, GP group was assigned to receive transdermal granisetron (one GTDS patch, 7 days) in the first chemotherapy cycle, palonosetron (iv 0.25 mg/day, 1 days) in the second chemotherapy cycle before receiving MEC, and PG group was assigned to receive palonosetron in the first cycle and GTDS in the second cycle. Primary endpoint was the percentage of chemotherapy cycles achieving complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication use) during the acute phase (0-24 h in post-chemotherapy; non-inferiority comparison with palonosetron).

RESULTS

Total 333 cycles (165 in GTDS and 168 in palonosetron) were included in the per protocol analysis. The GTDS cycles showed non-inferiority to palonosetron cycles during the acute phase: CR was achieved by 124 (75.2 %) patients in the GTDS cycles and 134 (79.8 %) patients in the palonosetron cycles (treatment difference, -4.6 %; 95 % confidence interval, -13.6-4.4). There was no significant difference in CR rate during acute phase after the end of the first and second chemotherapy cycle between GP and PG group (p = 0.405, p = 0.074). Patients' satisfaction, assessed using Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLI-E), GTDS cycle were higher than those of palonosetron cycle in GP group (FLI-E score; median 1549.5 in GTDS cycle, median 1670.0 in palonosetron cycle). Both treatments were well tolerated and safe.

CONCLUSION

Transdermal granisetron is a good alternative therapeutic option to palonosetron for preventing CINV after MEC.

[Health-related quality of life in patients treated for ovarian cancer: tools and issues]

Health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients treated for ovarian cancer is directly and heavily impacted by the natural history of cancer, its evolution and its therapeutic modalities. The evaluation and consideration of various parameters of QoL seems to be a major issue. Indeed, on the one hand, it is essential to take into account the opinion of patients in the choice of therapeutic strategies for this cancer with a poor prognosis and, on the other hand, more and more studies show that QoL is an independent prognostic factor in ovarian cancer. Improvement in this case, in addition to being an endpoint by itself, would potentially improve the overall survival of patients. To date there are several tools to assess QOL of patients with ovarian cancer. The 2 questionnaires most commonly used are: FACT-O and the EORTC QLQ-OV28. The aim of our study was to evaluate from a review of the literature, the reciprocal effects of ovarian cancer on QoL and QoL on ovarian cancer survival, as well as specificities of each of the 2 questionnaires most commonly used in assessing the QoL.

Palonosetron for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. The introduction of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists has been a major factor in the improvement of the prevention of chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis. Palonosetron , a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a different half-life, a different binding capacity, and a different mechanism of action than the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists appears to be the most effective agent in this drug class.

AREAS COVERED

Palonosetron's chemistry, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, clinical efficacy, including comparison with other antiemetics, role in controlling nausea, potential role in multi-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, and overall safety are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The clinical data in the literature have established palonosetron as the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist of choice in terms of efficacy and safety for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Three international guidelines have listed palonosetron as the preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Due to its higher efficacy, the use of palonosetron may be more cost effective compared to the generic first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Clinical organizations' pharmacy and formulary committees should consider efficacy when making recommendations for agents for the prevention of CINV.

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

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a key component of treatment for patients with cancer. Guidelines are available to assist prescribers in the management of CINV associated with single-day chemotherapy regimens. However, currently there are no clear guidelines for management of CINV in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy regimens. Serotonin (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists are a mainstay in preventing CINV, and palonosetron, given its longer half-life and duration of action relative to other 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, may be a useful option for managing CINV in multiple-day chemotherapy. Here we provide an overview of CINV and CINV treatment options, with a focus on palonosetron. We describe existing challenges in managing CINV, and discuss two patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy, in whom CINV was managed successfully with palonosetron.

Multicenter nonrandomized trial of ramosetron versus palonosetron in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have a negative impact on patients' quality of life and frequently pointed to as a major factor for treatment abandonment. Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist is considered as key treatment for CINV. Ramosetron and palonosetron are recently developed 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and known as more superior than other first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of ramosetron and palonosetron and determine which drug is more effective for prevention of CINV.

METHODS

Colorectal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy were enrolled consecutively. Patients were assigned to receive intravenous injection of ramosetron 0.3 mg or palonosetron 0.25 mg at 30 minutes before initiation of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Ramosetron group added oral administration of 0.1 mg ramosetron on the second and third days of chemotherapy. Efficacy parameter consisted of nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients received ramosetron and 89 patients received palonosetron. Presentation of vomiting and nausea symptoms was not significantly different between the two groups during acute (0-24 hours) and delayed period (after 24 hours).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of CINV between the ramosetron and the palonosetron group has not shown any difference during acute, delayed, and overall period.

Aprepitant: a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life, and although the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone has significantly improved the control of acute CINV, delayed nausea and vomiting remain a significant clinical problem. Aprepitant (Emend), Merck) is the first agent available in the new drug class of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. When added to a standard regimen of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, it improves the complete response rate of acute CINV. Aprepitant also improves the complete response of delayed CINV when used in combination with dexamethasone compared with dexamethasone alone. Based on these studies, new guidelines for the prevention of CINV have been developed for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. The use of aprepitant in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy will await the review and analysis of recently completed Phase III trials. Aprepitant is a substrate, a moderate inhibitor and an inducer of cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 and CYP2C9. Drug interactions should be monitored when aprepitant is coadministered with agents affected by CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 isoenzymes. The safety and efficacy of aprepitant has not been established in pediatric or adolescent patients, and aprepitant has not been evaluated in the treatment of patients with established nausea and vomiting. Future studies may consider the use of aprepitant with current and other new agents in moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapy, as well in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Pooled analysis of phase III clinical studies of palonosetron versus ondansetron, dolasetron, and granisetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)

Purpose

Preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is integral to treatment success in patients with cancer. This analysis was undertaken to assess the relative efficacy and safety of palonosetron versus older 5HT₃ RAs in preventing CINV associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Methods

Patient-level data from four randomized, double-blind, phase III trials comparing palonosetron 0.25 or 0.75 mg with ondansetron 32 mg, dolasetron 100 mg, or granisetron 40 μg/kg were analyzed. Endpoints included complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue antiemetics) in the acute (0–24 h), delayed (>24–120 h), and overall (0–120 h) postchemotherapy periods (primary), complete control (CC: no emesis, no rescue antiemetics, and no more than mild nausea), number of emetic episodes, and nausea severity.

Results

CR rates were significantly higher for palonosetron (n = 1,787) versus older 5HT₃ RAs (n = 1,175) in the delayed (57 vs 45 %, P < 0.0001) and overall periods (51 vs 40 %, P < 0.0001); odds ratios (95 % CI) in the acute, delayed, and overall periods were 1.15 (0.98–1.34), 1.62 (1.40–1.88), and 1.56 (1.34–1.81), respectively. Significant differences in CC rates and nausea severity were observed for the delayed and overall periods and in emetic episodes for all three periods. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar with palonosetron (0.25 mg, 20.0 %; 0.75 mg, 26.5 %) and older 5HT₃ RAs (27.5 %).

Conclusions

Palonosetron is more effective than older 5HT₃ RAs for controlling CINV in the delayed and overall postchemotherapy periods.

SEOM guide to antiemetic prophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy 2013

Chemotherapy-induced emesis (CIE) both in the form of nausea and vomiting is one of the adverse effects most feared by patients who receive treatment, and one of the factors that most affect their quality of life and limit their functional capacity for everyday activities. Chemotherapy-induced emesis can result from many factors, depending on the treatment and the patients themselves. The best treatment for CIE is prevention, based on the use of drugs aimed at inhibiting the signal of certain neurotransmitters involved in the process. Antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy of high-emetogenous potential lasting 1 day includes a combination of anti-5-HT3, neurokinin-1 inhibitors and dexamethasone. Antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy of moderate-emetogenous potential lasting 1 day includes a combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone. Prophylaxis is not recommended for chemotherapy with minimal emetogenous potential. In the case of unforeseen or refractory emesis the use of olanzapine, metoclopramide or phenothiazine should be considered.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting : focus on newer agents and new uses for older agents

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. The use of a combination of a serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and a neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist has significantly improved the control of acute and delayed emesis in single-day chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a different half-life, a different binding capacity and a different mechanism of action than the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists appears to be the most effective agent in its class. Aprepitant, the first and only agent clinically available in the NK1 receptor antagonist drug class has been used effectively as an additive agent to the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to control CINV. Rolapitant and netupitant are other NK1 receptor antagonists that are currently in phase III clinical trials. Despite the control of emesis, nausea has not been well controlled by current agents. Olanzapine, a US-FDA approved antipsychotic, has emerged in recent trials as an effective preventative agent for CINV, as well as a very effective agent for the treatment of breakthrough emesis and nausea. Clinical trials using gabapentin, cannabinoids and ginger have not been definitive regarding their efficacy in the prevention of CINV. Additional studies are necessary for the control of nausea and for the control of CINV in the clinical settings of multiple-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation.

Antiemetic effects of dexamethasone and ondansetron combination during cesarean sections under spinal anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are frequently seen in patients undergoing cesarean section (CS) under regional anesthesia. We aimed to compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron and dexamethasone combination with that of the use of each agent alone to decrease the incidence of post-delivery intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV) during CS under spinal anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron and dexamethasone combination with that of the single use of each agent to decrease the incidence of postdelivery IONV during CS under spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

A randomized, prospective, double blind study was performed on 90 patients undergoing planned CS under spinal anesthesia. Patients received 4mg ondansetron in Group O, 8mg dexamethasone in GroupD, 4mg ondansetron+8mg dexamethasone in Group OD intravenously within 1-2 minutes after the umbilical cord was clamped. Frequency of postdelivery IONV episodes was recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 86 eligible patients were included in the study. There were 29 patients in Group O, 29 patients in Group D and 28 patients in Group OD. There were no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of baseline characteristics and intraoperative managements. Frequency of intraoperative nausea, retching and vomiting experiences were similar between the groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Single dose 4mg ondansetron, 8mg dexamethasone, or combined use of 8mg dexamethasone+4mg ondansetron, given intravenously is all effective agents for the control of postdelivery IONV. Combined use of dexamethasone and ondansetron for the same indication does not seem to increase the antiemetic efficacy.

Pharmacokinetic Evaluation and Safety Profile of a 15-Minute Versus 30-Second Infusion of Palonosetron in Healthy Subjects

Palonosetron is a potent, selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist effective in the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In practice, 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, including palonosetron, are often coadministered with dexamethasone over approximately 15 minutes, although the approval of palonosetron was based on administration as a 30-second infusion. This open-label, randomized, 2-way crossover trial compared the pharmacokinetics and safety of palonosetron 0.25 mg administered as a 15-minute 50-mL intravenous infusion with a 30-second 5-mL infusion. Aside from an anticipated 40% decrease in maximum plasma concentration after a 15-minute infusion, the pharmacokinetics of palonosetron (including area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC], plasma elimination half-life, total body clearance, and apparent volume of distribution at steady state) were similar for both treatments. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant changes in vital signs or electrocardiograms. Palonosetron infused over 15 minutes is well tolerated, with an AUC(0-infinity) equivalent to a 30-second infusion.

Pharmacokinetic and Safety Evaluation of Palonosetron, a 5-Hydroxytryptamine-3 Receptor Antagonist, in U.S. and Japanese Healthy Subjects

Palonosetron (Aloxi, Onicit) is a selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This study was performed to determine the pharmacokinetics and assess the safety and tolerability of intravenous (IV) palonosetron in healthy U.S. and Japanese subjects. Subjects were administered a single IV dose of palonosetron, ranging from 0.3 to 90 microg/kg in either of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending-dose studies (n = 80 and n = 32, respectively). Serial blood samples were obtained in both studies to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of palonosetron and its N-oxide metabolite, M9. Intravenous palonosetron was well tolerated across a wide range of doses in both studies. The incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) were similar between subjects receiving palonosetron and those receiving placebo, with no dose-dependent incidences. The most frequently reported AEs were headache, transient elevation of liver enzymes, and constipation. Systemic exposure (AUC and C(max)) for palonosetron generally increased with increasing dose. Mean total body clearance, elimination half-life, and apparent volume of distribution ranged from 1.11 to 3.90 mL/min/kg, 33.7 to 54.1 hours, and 3.85 to 12.6 L/kg, respectively, in U.S. subjects and from 2.58 to 3.50 mL/min/kg, 30.8 to 36.8 hours, and 6.96 to 9.85 L/kg, respectively, in Japanese subjects. The pharmacokinetics of palonosetron appeared to be independent of dose, with no dose adjustment required in Japanese subjects. The plasma concentration profile of palonosetron, as represented by a half-life of approximately 40 hours, may provide a clinical advantage over other 5-HT(3) antagonists.

The effect of palonosetron hydrochloride in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced moderate and severe nausea and vomiting

The current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron hydrochloride injection for preventing chemotherapy-induced moderate and severe nausea and vomiting. A multi-centered, randomly stratified, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group and positive-controlled trial was performed. A total of 240 patients who underwent chemotherapy treatment which induced moderate or severe vomiting were divided into the experimental and control groups. Half an hour before chemotherapy, the experimental group received a 0.25-mg palonosetron hydrochloride injection, whereas the control group received a 3-mg granisetron injection. The acute vomiting complete remission rate (CRR) of the experimental group was not significantly different compared with that of the control group (P=0.35). The delayed vomiting CRR of the experimental group was significantly higher compared with that of the control group (P=0.002). No difference in full course vomiting CRR, vomiting control time, treatment failure time or acute nausea CRR was identified between the two groups. No significant differences in adverse events were observed between the experimental group and the control group. No significant differences in adverse reactions occurred between the experimental group and the control group (12.50%). Palonosetron hydrochloride injection had a better effect on delayed vomiting CRR than granisetron hydrochloride injection. The two injections exhibited similar effects on acute vomiting CRR, full course vomiting CRR, vomiting control time, treatment failure time (days), acute nausea CRR and adverse events.

Protective effect of tropisetron on rodent hepatic injury after trauma-hemorrhagic shock through P38 MAPK-dependent hemeoxygenase-1 expression

Tropisetron can decrease inflammatory cell responses and alleviate organ damage caused by trauma-hemorrhage, but the mechanism of these effects remains unknown. The p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase/hemeoxygenase-1 (p38 MAPK/HO-1) pathway exerts anti-inflammatory effects on different tissues. The aim of this study was to investigate whether p38 MAPK/HO-1 plays any role in the tropisetron-mediated attenuation of hepatic injury after trauma-hemorrhage. Male Sprague-Dawley rats underwent trauma-hemorrhage (mean blood pressure maintained at approximately 35–40 mmHg for 90 min), followed by fluid resuscitation. During resuscitation, several treatment regimens were administered: four doses of tropisetron alone (0.1, 0.3, 1, 3 mg/kg body weight), or a single dose of tropisetron (1 mg/kg body weight) with and without a p38 MAPK inhibitor (SB-203580, 2 mg/kg body weight) or HO antagonist (chromium-mesoporphyrin, 2.5 mg/kg body weight). Various parameters were measured, and the animals were sacrificed at 24 h post-resuscitation. The results showed that trauma-hemorrhage increased the following parameters: plasma concentrations of aspartate (AST) and alanine aminotransferases (ALT), hepatic myeloperoxidase (MPO) activity, and levels of cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant-1 and -3 (CINC-1 and CINC-3), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and macrophage inflammatory protein-1α (MIP-1α). These parameters were significantly improved in the tropisetron-treated rats subjected to trauma-hemorrhage. Tropisetron treatment also increased hepatic p38 MAPK and HO-1 expression compared with vehicle-treated trauma-hemorrhaged rats. Co-administration of SB-203580 or chromium-mesoporphyrin with tropisetron abolished the tropisetron-induced beneficial effects on the above parameters and hepatic injury. These results suggest that the protective effect of tropisetron administration on alleviation of hepatic injury after trauma-hemorrhage is likely mediated through p38 MAPK-dependent HO-1 expression.

Pharmacokinetics and repolarization effects of intravenous and transdermal granisetron

PURPOSE

The need for greater clarity about the effects of 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists on cardiac repolarization is apparent in the changing product labeling across this therapeutic class. This study assessed the repolarization effects of granisetron, a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist antiemetic, administered intravenously and by a granisetron transdermal system (GTDS).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

In a parallel four-arm study, healthy subjects were randomized to receive intravenous granisetron, GTDS, placebo, or oral moxifloxacin (active control). The primary endpoint was difference in change from baseline in mean Fridericia-corrected QT interval (QTcF) between GTDS and placebo (ddQTcF) on days 3 and 5.

RESULTS

A total of 240 subjects were enrolled, 60 in each group. Adequate sensitivity for detection of QTc change was shown by a 5.75 ms lower bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for moxifloxacin versus placebo at 2 hours postdose on day 3. Day 3 ddQTcF values varied between 0.2 and 1.9 ms for GTDS (maximum upper bound of 90% CI, 6.88 ms), between -1.2 and 1.6 ms for i.v. granisetron (maximum upper bound of 90% CI, 5.86 ms), and between -3.4 and 4.7 ms for moxifloxacin (maximum upper bound of 90% CI, 13.45 ms). Day 5 findings were similar. Pharmacokinetic-ddQTcF modeling showed a minimally positive slope of 0.157 ms/(ng/mL), but a very low correlation (r = 0.090).

CONCLUSION

GTDS was not associated with statistically or clinically significant effects on QTcF or other electrocardiographic variables. This study provides useful clarification on the effect of granisetron delivered by GTDS on cardiac repolarization.

Comparison of two dosing schedules of palonosetron for the prevention of nausea and vomiting due to interleukin-2-based biochemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Treatment of metastatic melanoma with interleukin-2-based biochemotherapy involves administration of a combination of moderately and highly emetogenic chemotherapies over 5 days. Corticosteroids for the prevention of biochemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are contraindicated because they cause lysis of LAK cells produced in response to interleukin-2. Palonosetron is a long-acting, highly potent, second-generation serotonin receptor antagonist. The recommended dosing schedule of palonosetron for the control of CINV due to biochemotherapy is not known.

METHODS

In a phase II design, treatment-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma undergoing the first cycle of biochemotherapy were randomized to receive palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously for CINV prophylaxis on either days 1 and 4 (schedule 1) or days 1, 3, and 5 (schedule 2). All patients received dacarbazine on day 1, cisplatin, vinblastine, and interleukin-2 on days 1-4, and interferon alpha-2b on days 1-5. We evaluated and compared, by palonosetron dosing schedule, the pattern and the severity of CINV during the first 7 days of treatment and the duration of the 21-day cycle as well as the impact on daily function with the Functional Living Index-Emesis.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (median age 53 years) were enrolled. Eighteen (60%) were men. A consistent trend of a better control of both nausea and vomiting favoring schedule 2 was observed during the first 7 days and throughout the cycle. Significantly more patients experienced nausea on any day during the first 7 days on schedule 1 (mean number of episodes 8.1 ± 1.5) than on schedule 2 (mean number of episodes 5.6 ± 2.3, p = 0.028). The impact on daily function was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both dosing schedules of palonosetron were tolerated well. Alternate day dosing of palonosetron was more effective in controlling CINV in this patient population.

Astragalus polysaccharide injection integrated with vinorelbine and cisplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: effects on quality of life and survival

A platinum-based two-drug regimen is currently the standard of care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, chemotherapy-induced side effects still remain a significant clinical problem. Astragalus polysaccharide (APS) is a polysaccharide isolated from the radix of astragalus membranaceus, a commonly used herbal compound in traditional Chinese medicine. APS was reported to increase tumor response, stabilize and improve performance status, and reduce chemotherapy toxicity. We designed this trial to determine whether APS injection integrated with vinorelbine and cisplatin (VC) offered an improved QOL over VC for patients with advanced NSCLC. Secondary objectives were tumor response, toxicity, and survival results. One hundred thirty-six patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed NSCLC were enrolled in this study from May 2008 to March 2010. Patients were randomized to receive either VC (VC arm) or VC combined with APS (VC-APS arm). The objective response rate of was 42.64% in the VC-APS arm and 36.76% in the VC arm. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.483). Median survival time was 10.7 and 10.2 months (P = 0.76) in VC-APS arm and VC arm, with 1-year survival rates of 35.3 and 32.4% (P = 0.717), respectively. After 3 cycles of treatment, there were significant differences in the overall patient QOL (P = 0.003), physical function (P = 0.01), fatigue (P < 0.001), nausea and vomiting (P < 0.001), pain (P = 0.007), and loss of appetite (P = 0.023) between the two study groups. In summary, we have proved that the treatment of APS integrated with VC had significantly improved QOL in patients with advanced NSCLC compared with VC alone.

Therapeutics of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists: current uses and future directions

The 5-Hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor is a member of the cys-loop family of ligand gated ion channels, of which the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor is the prototype. All other 5-HT receptors identified to date are metabotropic receptors. The 5-HT3 receptor is present in the central and peripheral nervous systems, as well as a number of non-nervous tissues. As an ion channel that is permeable to the cations, Na(+), K(+), and Ca(2+), the 5-HT3 receptor mediates fast depolarizing responses in pre- and post-synaptic neurons. As such, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists that are used clinically block afferent and efferent synaptic transmission. The most well established physiological roles of the 5-HT3 receptor are to coordinate emesis and regulate gastrointestinal motility. Currently marketed 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are indicated for the treatment of chemotherapy, radiation, and anesthesia-induced nausea and vomiting, as well as irritable bowel syndrome. Other therapeutic uses that have been explored include pain and drug addiction. The 5-HT3 receptor is one of a number of receptors that play a role in mediating nausea and vomiting, and as such, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists demonstrate the greatest anti-emetic efficacy when administered in combination with other drug classes.