A multicenter phase II trial of the triplet antiemetic therapy with palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine for a cisplatin-containing regimen. - PATROL-I.

Dexamethasone is one of the key antiemetic agents and is widely used even now. However, dexamethasone has been associated with several adverse reactions even after short-term administration. Therefore, developing a steroid-free antiemetic regimen is an important issue to consider. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant, and olanzapine in a multi-institutional phase II study. Chemotherapy-naive patients scheduled to receive cisplatin were enrolled and evaluated for the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during 120 h after chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the study was total control (TC) in the overall phase. The key secondary endpoint was complete response (CR), which was assessed in the acute, delayed, and overall phase, respectively. Adverse events were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Eighty-five patients were enrolled from 8 centers in Japan, of which 83 were evaluable for analyses. The percentage of patients who achieved TC during the overall phase was 31.3%. CR was achieved in 61.4%, 84.3%, and 65.1% of patients during the overall, acute, and delayed phases, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse event was anorexia. The primary endpoint was below the threshold and we could not find benefit in the dexamethasone-free regimen, but CR during the overall phase was similar to that of the conventional three-drug regimen. This antiemetic regimen without dexamethasone might be an option for patients for whom corticosteroids should not be an active application.

Ocular Administration of Palonosetron in the Prevention of Cisplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting.

Cancer treatments are frequently associated with nausea and vomiting despite greatly improved preventive medication. Administration of antinausea agents as eye drops might provide easy and rapid access to the systemic circulation for prevention of nausea and vomiting and for the treatment of breakthrough nausea, but the ocular administration route has rarely been evaluated. Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist approved for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We compared ocular administration of palonosetron to non-active vehicle eye drops and to intravenous palonosetron in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in beagle dogs. Palonosetron ocular drops at the dose of 30 µg/kg reduced cumulative nausea over time as measured with the area under the visual analog scale curve by 98% compared with the vehicle and reduced nausea-associated dog behavior by 95%. Vomiting was completely prevented with repeated palonosetron ocular dosing. Hydroxypropyl-ß-cyclodextrin (HP-ß-CD) palonosetron formulation was well tolerated locally at the palonosetron concentration of 3 mg/ml. Absorption of palonosetron from eye drops was fast. Ten minutes after ocular administration, palonosetron plasma concentrations were similar compared with intravenous administration, and remained similar for six hours. We conclude that palonosetron is rapidly absorbed into the systemic circulation from eye drops. Ocularly administered palonosetron was well tolerated in the HP-ß-CD formulation and was highly effective in the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of ocular administration of palonosetron is warranted in the prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in clinical trials. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Palonosetron, an effective and well-tolerated antiemetic drug was rapidly absorbed into the systemic blood circulation when administered as eye drops. The achieved palonosetron blood concentrations prevented cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in beagle dogs. Palonosetron eye drops might provide an easy and quick method for administering palonosetron when parenteral administration is desired and intravenous administration is not feasible.

Effectiveness of Palonosetron, 1-Day Dexamethasone, and Aprepitant in Patients Undergoing Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, is associated with poor control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether using palonosetron (PALO) as a 5HT3RA provides superior control with CINV than first-generation (1st) 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with a DEX-sparing strategy. METHODS: Pooled patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, and prospective observational study were analyzed to compare the incidence of CINV between patients administered PALO and 1st 5HT3RA in combination with 1-day DEX and APR. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CINV, pattern of CINV, or severity of nausea by type of 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with DEX-sparing strategy. In both groups, the incidence of nausea gradually increased from day 3, peaked on day 4 or 5, and then declined slowly. The visual analog scale scores in the delayed phase remained high throughout the 7-day observation period. CONCLUSION: Careful patient selection and symptom monitoring are needed when implementing the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis for patients undergoing CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, additional strategies may be needed to achieve better control of delayed CINV.

Detection of drug safety signal of drug-induced neutropenia and agranulocytosis in all-aged patients using electronic medical records.

PURPOSE: We explored the adverse drug reaction signals of drug-induced neutropenia (DIN) and drug-induced agranulocytosis (DIA) in hospitalized patients and evaluated the novelty of these correlations. METHOD: A two-step method was established to identify the relationship between drugs and DIN or DIA using 5-year electronic medical records (EMRs) obtained from 242 000 patients at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University. First, the drugs suspected to induce DIN or DIA were selected. The associations between suspected drugs and DIN or DIA were evaluated by a retrospective cohort study using unconditional logistic regression analysis and multiple linear regression model. RESULTS: Twelve suspected drugs (vancomycin, meropenem, voriconazole, acyclovir, ganciclovir, fluconazole, oseltamivir, linezolid, compound borax solution, palonosetron, polyene phosphatidylcholine, and sulfamethoxazole) were associated with DIN, and six suspected drugs (vancomycin, voriconazole, acyclovir, ganciclovir, fluconazole, and oseltamivir) were associated with DIA. The multivariate linear regression model revealed that nine drugs (vancomycin, meropenem, voriconazole, ganciclovir, fluconazole, oseltamivir, compound borax solution, palonosetron, and polyene phosphatidylcholine) and four drugs (vancomycin, voriconazole, ganciclovir, and fluconazole) were found to be associated with DIN and DIA, respectively. While logistic regression analysis revealed that palonosetron and ganciclovir were associated with DIN and DIA, respectively. CONCLUSION: Palonosetron and ganciclovir were found to be correlated with drug-induced granulocytopenia. The results of this study provide an early warning of drug safety signals for drug-induced granulocytopenia, facilitating a quick and appropriate response for clinicians.

Evaluation of contemporary olanzapine- and netupitant/palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

INTRODUCTION: This post-hoc analysis retrospectively assessed data from two recent studies of antiemetic regimens for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The primary objective was to compare olanzapine-based versus netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA)-based regimens in terms of controlling CINV during cycle 1 of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy; secondary objectives were to assess quality of life (QOL) and emesis outcomes over four cycles of AC. METHODS: This study included 120 Chinese patients with early-stage breast cancer who were receiving AC; 60 patients received the olanzapine-based antiemetic regimen, whereas 60 patients received the NEPA-based antiemetic regimen. The olanzapine-based regimen comprised aprepitant, ondansetron, dexamethasone, and olanzapine; the NEPA-based regimen comprised NEPA and dexamethasone. Patient outcomes were compared in terms of emesis control and QOL. RESULTS: During cycle 1 of AC, the olanzapine group exhibited a higher rate of 'no use of rescue therapy' in the acute phase (olanzapine vs NEPA: 96.7% vs 85.0%, P=0.0225). No parameters differed between groups in the delayed phase. The olanzapine group had significantly higher rates of 'no use of rescue therapy' (91.7% vs 76.7%, P=0.0244) and 'no significant nausea' (91.7% vs 78.3%, P=0.0408) in the overall phase. There were no differences in QOL between groups. Multiple cycle assessment revealed that the NEPA group had higher rates of total control in the acute phase (cycles 2 and 4) and the overall phase (cycles 3 and 4). CONCLUSION: These results do not conclusively support the superiority of either regimen for patients with breast cancer who are receiving AC.

Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron combination (NEPA) in preventing nausea and vomiting in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients undergoing to chemomobilization before autologous stem cell transplantation.

PURPOSE: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is particularly challenging for patients receiving highly emetogenic preparative regimens before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) due to the daily and continuous emetogenic stimulus of the multiple day chemotherapy. While studies have shown effective prevention of CINV during the conditioning phase with NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA)-containing regimens, there have been no studies evaluating antiemetic use during chemomobilization prior to ASCT. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, phase IIa study evaluated the efficacy of every-other-day dosing of NEPA administered during chemomobilization in patients with relapsed-refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eighty-one patients participated. RESULTS: Response rates were 77.8% for complete response (no emesis and no rescue use), 72.8% for complete control (complete response and no more than mild nausea), 86.4% for no emesis, and 82.7% for no rescue use during the overall phase (duration of chemomobilization through 48 h after). NEPA was well tolerated with no treatment-related adverse events reported. CONCLUSION: NEPA, administered with a simplified every-other-day schedule, show to be very effective in preventing CINV in patients at high risk of CINV undergoing to chemomobilization of hematopoietic stem cells prior to ASCT.

Effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly occurs after chemotherapy, adversely affecting patients' quality of life. Recently, studies have shown inconsistent antiemetic effects of two common 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists, namely, palonosetron and granisetron. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of palonosetron versus granisetron in preventing CINV. METHODS: Relevant studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was the complete response (CR) rate. Secondary outcomes were headache and constipation events. RESULTS: In total, 12 randomized controlled trials and five retrospective studies were reviewed. Palonosetron was consistently statistically superior to granisetron in all phases in terms of the CR rate (acute phases: odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06-1.54; delayed phases: OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.13-1.69; and overall phases: OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.17-1.60). Moreover, a non-significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the headache event, but the occurrence of the constipation event was lower in the granisetron group than in the palonosetron group. CONCLUSION: Palonosetron showed a higher protective efficacy in all phases of CINV prevention, especially in delayed phases, and no relatively severe adverse effects were observed.

Severity of constipation related to palonosetron during first-line chemotherapy: a retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Palonosetron, a long-acting 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, is an effective antiemetic agent for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; however, it sometimes causes severe constipation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the severity of palonosetron-related constipation. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the incidence and severity of constipation after intravenous administration of 0.75-mg palonosetron in 150 chemotherapy-naïve patients who received first-line chemotherapy at Saga University Hospital. Constipation was classified into grades 1-5 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with palonosetron-related worsening of constipation to grade 2 or higher. RESULTS: Palonosetron significantly increased the incidence and severity of constipation (incidence: before vs. after palonosetron, 35.4% vs. 74.0%, p < 0.0001, and severity: before vs. after palonosetron, 26.7% and 8.7% in grades 1 and 2, respectively, vs. 46.7%, 23.3%, and 4.0% in grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively, p < 0.0001). Despite the use of laxatives, 4.0% of patients had grade 3 constipation requiring manual evacuation. Combination treatment with aprepitant (odds ratio (OR), 10.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-90.0; p = 0.026) and older age (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.57; p = 0.039) were factors associated with the severity of constipation. CONCLUSION: Constipation was more severe in patients receiving combination treatment with aprepitant than in those treated with palonosetron alone. Older age was also associated with increased risk of severe palonosetron-related constipation. Identification of risk factors can help target risk-based laxative therapy.

Real-world evidence of NEPA, netupitant-palonosetron, in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention: effects on quality of life.

Aim: To determine quality of life, effectiveness and safety of oral netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA)-based antiemetic prophylaxis in the real-world setting. Materials & methods: Prospective, noninterventional study in adults receiving highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and NEPA for three cycles. NEPA was administered per summary of product characteristics. Results: A total of 2429 patients enrolled, 2173 were evaluable. 'No impact on daily life' due to vomiting was reported by 85%/82% of patients in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy/moderately emetogenic chemotherapy groups in cycle 1, with rates of 54%/59% for nausea. Overall, complete response rate was 89%/87%/83% in the acute/delayed/overall phases. NEPA was well tolerated. Conclusion: NEPA had beneficial effects on the quality of life of a heterogeneous group of cancer patients and was safe and effective in the real-world setting.

Timing flexibility of oral NEPA, netupitant-palonosetron combination, administration for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

PURPOSE: The administration timing of antiemetic and chemotherapeutic regimens is often determined by regulatory indications, based on registration studies. Oral NEPA, fixed combination of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 RA (5-HT3RA) palonosetron, is recommended to be administered approximately 60 min before chemotherapy. Reducing chair time for chemotherapy administration at oncology day therapy units would improve facility efficiency without compromising patient symptom management. The objective was to determine if oral NEPA can be administered closer to chemotherapy initiation without compromising patient symptom management. METHODS: NK1 receptor occupancy (NK1RO) time course in the brain was determined using positron emission tomography; netupitant and palonosetron plasma concentration-time profiles were described by pharmacokinetic (PK) models; and the rate, extent, and duration of RO by netupitant and palonosetron were predicted by pharmacodynamic modeling. Clinical efficacy data from a pivotal study in cisplatin and oral NEPA-receiving patients were reviewed in the context of symptom management. RESULTS: Striatal 90% NK1RO, assumed to correlate with NK1RA antiemetic efficacy, was predicted at netupitant plasma concentration of 225 ng/mL, reached at 2.23 h following NEPA administration. Palonosetron 90% 5-HT3RO was predicted at a 188-ng/L plasma concentration, reached at 1.05 h postdose. The mean time to first treatment failure for the 1.5% of NEPA-treated patients without complete response receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy was 8 h. Antiemetic efficacy was sustained over 5 days despite the expected decrease of NK1RO and 5-HT3RO. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that administering oral NEPA closer to initiation of cisplatin administration would provide similar antiemetic efficacy. Prospective clinical validation is required.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral NEPA (Netupitant/Palonosetron), the First Fixed-Combination Antiemetic, in Patients With Gynecological Cancers Receiving Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with gynecological cancers are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after platinum-based chemotherapy (CT). NEPA (300-mg netupitant, 0.50-mg palonosetron) is the first oral fixed-combination antiemetic. Pivotal trials demonstrated the superiority of oral NEPA over intravenous palonosetron in preventing CINV after highly emetogenic (anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based [AC] and cisplatin-based [non-AC]) CT. This post hoc subset analysis considered patients with gynecological cancer receiving cisplatin- or carboplatin-based CT from 1 pivotal trial and from 1 multicycle safety trial to evaluate the efficacy of oral NEPA in preventing CINV. METHODS: Single-dose NEPA was given before CT in combination with dexamethasone. The efficacy end points for the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (25-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours) CINV phases after CT included complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue medication) and no significant nausea (<25 mm on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: For cisplatin-induced CINV, NEPA achieved high CR rates (acute phase: >90%; delayed, overall phases: ≥85%). For carboplatin-induced CINV, NEPA was also highly effective, with high acute, delayed, and overall CR rates (cycle 1: >75%; cycles 2-4: >95%). No significant nausea rates were more than 90% and more than 80% in the acute and delayed phases, respectively, for patients receiving cisplatin or carboplatin. NEPA was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that oral NEPA is effective and safe in preventing CINV in patients with gynecological cancers treated with cisplatin- or carboplatin-based CT. Single fixed-combination NEPA is a convenient option for CINV prevention in high-risk CINV patients.

Evaluation of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine as antiemetic prophylaxis for fludarabine and melphalan-based conditioning regimens prior to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding efficacious antiemetic regimens to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). In patients aged 60 years or older, allogeneic HSCT is associated with improved survival, but tolerability of the transplant is a significant barrier. Fludarabine and melphalan (Flu-Mel) is a frequently utilized multi-day reduced intensity conditioning regimen for allogeneic HSCT. However, the optimal CINV prevention regimen is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel CINV prophylaxis regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT with Flu-Mel compared to a historical control group. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort review of 123 patients who received a Flu-Mel preparative regimen prior to allogeneic HSCT from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022. Fifty-nine patients received high dose ondansetron (HDO) for CINV prevention, while sixty-four patients received a combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine (PFO). The primary outcome was average number of rescue antiemetic doses administered per day. A key secondary outcome was time to first rescue antiemetic. RESULTS: The median number of antiemetic doses used per day was significantly lower in patients who received PFO compared to HDO (1.94 doses [0.31-3.60] vs 3.31 doses [1.61-4.92]; p = 0.002). In addition, use of PFO significantly prolonged the median time to first rescue antiemetic compared to HDO (41.3 h [24.3-122.7] vs 26.2 h [14.7-48.1]; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The combination of palonosetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine is an effective antiemetic regimen for patients receiving a Flu-Mel-based preparative regimen.

Dexamethasone-Free Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Double-Blind, Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial (CINV POD study).

PURPOSE: The effectiveness of a dexamethasone (DEX)-free regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) is not known. METHODS: This was a double-blind, phase III trial designed to show the noninferiority of a DEX-free regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and fosaprepitant [OPF]) compared with the DEX-containing regimen (olanzapine, palonosetron, and DEX [OPD]). Chemotherapy-naïve patients age 18-80 years receiving single-day HEC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either the OPD regimen or the OPF regimen. The primary objective was to compare complete response (CR) rates for vomiting during the overall period (start of chemotherapy to 120 hours). Secondary objectives included CR for vomiting during the acute period (0-24 hours) and delayed period (24-120 hours), CR for nausea, and comparison of toxicities and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-six patients received the study interventions, 174 in the OPD arm and 172 in the OPF arm. The DEX-free OPF arm had significantly higher CR rates for vomiting compared with the DEX-containing OPD arm in acute (94.7% v 85.6%; P < .004), delayed (81.9% v 50.5%; P < .001), and overall (79.6% v 48.8%; P < .001) periods. For nausea, CR rates in the OPF arm were higher in delayed (53.4% v 39.6%; P = .009) and overall (50.5% v 39.1%; P = .031) periods but not in the acute period (77.9% v 81.6%; P = .39). Fatigue (P = .009) and drowsiness (P = .002) were more in the OPF arm in the acute period and insomnia (P < .001) in the OPD arm in the overall period. CONCLUSION: This study shows that a DEX-free OPF regimen is efficacious and should be considered a standard option for acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis for HEC.

Comparison of the ED50 of prophylactic butorphanol in preventing morphine-induced pruritus with or without palonosetron: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized dose-response trial using an up-down sequential allocation method.

BACKGROUND: Butorphanol has been used to reduce the incidence and severity of neuraxial morphine-induced pruritus. Palonosetron is a commonly used antiemetic for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The aim of our study was to compare the effective dose in 50% of subjects (ED50) of intravenous butorphanol infusion with or without a single intravenous bolus of palonosetron for preventing pruritus induced by epidural administration of morphine. METHODS: A total of 120 parturients were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous bolus injection of palonosetron plus continuous infusion of butorphanol (Group P + B) or an intravenous bolus of saline plus continuous infusion of butorphanol (Group B) after epidural administration of morphine. The antipruritic effect was graded as satisfactory (numerical rating scale (NRS) of pruritus ≤3) or unsatisfactory (NRS >3) within 48 h after morphine treatment. The first patient in each group received butorphanol infusion at a rate of 4 µg/kg/h. The infusion dose for each subsequent patient in the corresponding group was increased by 0.2 µg/kg/h after an unsatisfactory response or decreased by 0.2 µg/kg/h after a satisfactory response. The ED50 was calculated for each group and compared using up-down sequential analysis. RESULTS: The ED50 (mean [95% confidence interval (CI)]) of the dose of intravenous butorphanol infusion for preventing moderate to severe pruritus was lower in Group P + B (3.29 µg/kg/min [3.25-3.34 µg/kg/min]) than in Group B (3.57 µg/kg/min [3.47-3.67 µg/kg/min]) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of the present study, a prophylactic use of 0.25 mg palonosetron reduced the ED50 of prophylactic infusion of butorphanol by approximately 8% to achieve a satisfactory antipruritic effect after epidural morphine for post-caesarean analgesia.

Dexamethasone-sparing regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in older patients (>65 years) fit for cisplatin: A sub-analysis from a phase 3 study.

INTRODUCTION: We recently demonstrated the non-inferiority of two dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing regimens with an oral fixed-combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) versus the guideline-recommended DEX use for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting. Since prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is critical in older patients, we retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of the DEX-sparing regimens in this subset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chemo-naive patients aged >65 years treated with high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) were eligible. Patients received NEPA and DEX on day 1 and were randomized to receive either (1) no further DEX (DEX1), (2) oral low-dose DEX (4 mg) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or (3) the guideline-recommended standard DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint of the parent study was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication) during the overall phase (days 1-5). No significant nausea (NSN; none or mild nausea) and the proportion of patients reporting no impact on daily life (NIDL) which was evaluated by the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire on day 6 (overall combined score > 108), were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Among the 228 patients in the parent study, 107 were > 65 years. Similar CR rates [95% confidence intervals (CI)] were observed in patients over 65 years across treatment groups [DEX1: 75% (59.7-86.8%); DEX3: 80.6% (62.5-92.6%); DEX4: 75% (56.6-88.5%)] as well as versus the total study population. NSN rates were also similar in the older-patients across treatment groups (p = 0.480) but were higher compared with the total population. Similar rates of NIDL (95% CI) were reported in the older-patient subset across treatment groups [DEX1: 61.5% (44.6-76.6%); DEX3: 64.3% (44.1-81.4%); DEX4: 62.1% (42.3-79.3%); p = 1.0] during the overall phase, as well as versus total population. A similar proportion of older patients across treatment groups experienced DEX-related side effects. DISCUSSION: This analysis shows that older-patients who are fit for cisplatin benefit from a simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX with neither loss in antiemetic efficacy nor the adverse impact on patient daily functioning. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04201769) on 17/12/2019 (retrospectively registered).

Netupitant-palonosetron (NEPA) for Preventing Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting: From Clinical Trials to Daily Practice.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event associated with many anticancer therapies and can negatively impact patients' quality of life and potentially limit the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Currently, CINV can be prevented in most patients with guideline-recommended antiemetic regimens. However, clinicians do not always follow guidelines, and patients often face difficulties adhering to their prescribed treatments. Therefore, approaches to increase guideline adherence need to be implemented. NEPA is the first and only fixed combination antiemetic, composed of netupitant (oral)/fosnetupitant (intravenous) and palonosetron, which, together with dexamethasone, constitute a triple antiemetic combination recommended for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy and for certain patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Thus, NEPA offers a convenient and straightforward antiemetic treatment that could improve adherence to guidelines. This review provides an overview of CINV, evaluates the accumulated evidence of NEPA's antiemetic activity and safety from clinical trials and real-world practice, and examines the preliminary evidence of antiemetic control with NEPA in daily clinical settings beyond those described in pivotal trials. Moreover, we review the utility of NEPA in controlling nausea and preserving patients' quality of life during chemotherapy, two major concerns in managing patients with cancer.

Real-world multicenter study of the safety and efficacy of netupitant plus palonosetron fixed-dose combination to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among Malaysian patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

AIM: A large proportion of cancer patients are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but the choice of anti-emetics for CINV in Malaysia is limited. METHODS: This was a real-world study of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) to inhibit CINV in adult patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for solid/hematological malignancies at eight Malaysian centers. Each HEC/MEC cycle received one dose of NEPA + dexamethasone for CINV prevention. Complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication) (CR), no more than mild nausea (severity score ≤ 2.5), and complete control (CR) (no more than mild nausea) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy were measured. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were recorded. RESULTS: During March 2016-April 2018 (NMRR-17-3286-38282), NEPA + dexamethasone was administered to 54 patients (77.8% solid, 22.2% hematological malignancies). Note that 59.3% received HEC, while 40.7% received MEC regimen. During the overall phase of the first cycle, the majority had CR (77.8%), no more than mild nausea (74.1%), and complete control (61.1%). Seventeen patients received two consecutive cycles at any point of chemotherapy cycles. During the overall phases across two consecutive cycles, all patients achieved CR, and the majority reported no more than mild nausea and complete control. No grades 3-4 AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: NEPA had sustained efficacy and tolerability at first administration and across two cycles of MEC/HEC for CINV prevention.

Comparison of efficacy between palonosetron-midazolam combination and palonosetron alone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing breast surgery and patient controlled analgesia: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study: A CONSORT-compliant study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complaint in patients following general anesthesia. Various antiemetics, including 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, are effective but still have limited efficacy. Therefore, combination therapy is preferable to using a single drug alone in high-risk patients. We performed a comparative study on the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, monotherapy vs palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy for the prevention of PONV. METHODS: A total of 104 female patients scheduled for breast cancer surgery were enrolled. They were randomly divided into 2 groups, a palonosetron monotherapy group (group P) and palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy group (group PM). Both groups received 0.075 mg palonosetron intravenously after induction of anesthesia. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was applied according to the allocated group. Intravenous (IV)-PCA in group P consisted of fentanyl 20 µg/kg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml); IV-PCA in group PM consisted of fentanyl 20 µg/kg plus midazolam 4 mg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml). Efficacy parameters were collected during 0 to 1, 1 to 6, 6 to 24, and 24 to 48 hours postoperative time intervals. These measures included complete response (defined as no PONV and no rescue anti-emetic use) rate, incidence of PONV, sedation score, rescue antiemetic use, rescue analgesic use, and numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain. The complete response rate during the 0 to 24 hours interval was analyzed as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Although the complete response rate between 0 and 24 hours was higher in group PM (42.3% and 48.1% in group P and PM, respectively), there was no statistically significant difference (P = .55). The complete response rates in other time intervals were not different between the 2 groups as well. The sedation score and NRS score also showed no differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination therapy of palonosetron with midazolam did not lead to a greater reduction in the incidence of PONV than monotherapy in patients undergoing breast surgery and receiving IV-PCA containing fentanyl.

Effects of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists on cisplatin-induced kidney injury.

Nausea, vomiting, and renal injury are the common adverse effects associated with cisplatin. Cisplatin is excreted via the multidrug and toxin release (MATE) transporter, and the involvement of the MATE transporter in cisplatin-induced kidney injury has been reported. The MATE transporter is also involved in the excretion of ondansetron, but the effects of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists used clinically for cisplatin-induced renal injury have not been elucidated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in a mouse model of cisplatin-induced kidney injury and to validate the results using medical big data analysis of more than 1.4 million reports and a survey of 3000 hospital medical records. The concomitant use of a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (ondansetron, granisetron, or ramosetron) significantly increased cisplatin accumulation in the kidneys and worsened renal damage. Conversely, the concomitant use of palonosetron had no effect on renal function compared with the use of cisplatin alone. Furthermore, an analysis of data from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and retrospective medical records revealed that the combination treatment of cisplatin and a first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist significantly increased the number of reported renal adverse events compared with the combination treatment of cisplatin and a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. These results suggest that compared with the first-generation antagonists, second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists do not worsen cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury. The findings should be validated in a prospective controlled trial before implementation in clinical practice.

Short-course olanzapine to prevent delayed emesis following carboplatin/paclitaxel for gynecologic cancer: a randomised study.

PURPOSE: To explore efficacy of short-course olanzapine with or without low-dose dexamethasone for prevention of delayed emesis in gynecologic cancer patients receiving carboplatin/paclitaxel. METHODS: This was a prospective study in 81 chemo-naive patients receiving 0.25 mg intravenous palonosetron, 16 mg dexamethasone, and 10 mg oral olanzapine before chemotherapy. On days 2 and 3, patients randomly received 10 mg olanzapine (arm A; n=27), 10 mg olanzapine plus 4 mg dexamethasone (arm B; n=27), or 8 mg dexamethasone (reference arm C; n=27). The primary endpoint was total control (TC; no vomiting, no rescue antiemetics, and no nausea) on days 2-5, using a diary. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients with no emesis impact on daily life using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire, and patient's satisfaction with antiemetic coverage. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of patients in arm A (P=0.406), 59% in arm B (P=0.779), and 67% in arm C had a delayed TC. Secondary analyses showed no significant difference across arms in any efficacy endpoint. FLIE scores as well as mean satisfaction scores were similar across arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study with a small sample size, we did not find any clue about better control of delayed emesis with either olanzapine regimen in gynecologic cancer patients treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel and receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis.