Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2-4 with combined palonosetron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial).

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%. RESULTS: A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life. CONCLUSION: DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER: UMIN000032269.

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.

Evaluation of Efficacy of Adding Aprepitant to Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in Carboplatin and Etoposide Therapy.

Although carboplatin (CBDCA) is classified as a moderately emetogenic agent, the majority of guidelines recommend the use of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist in addition to a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist with dexamethasone (DEX) for CBDCA-containing chemotherapy because of its higher emetogenic risk. However, the additional efficacy of aprepitant (APR) in CBDCA-containing treatment remains controversial, and data on multiple-day treatments are limited. Etoposide (ETP) was administered on days 1-3 in the CBDCA + ETP regimen, and it is important to evaluate suitable antiemetic therapy for the regimen. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of additional APR in CBDCA + ETP. Patients were divided into two groups and retrospectively evaluated. One was the control group, which was prophylactically administered palonosetron (PALO) and DEX, and the other was the APR group, which received APR orally with PALO and DEX. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) between the groups. The overall CR rates were 75.0 and 76.4% in the control and APR groups, respectively, with no significant difference (p = 1.00). In the acute phase, it was 88.9 and 97.2%, respectively, and 86.1 and 79.2% in the delayed phase, respectively, without significant differences (p = 0.10 and 0.38, respectively). The incidence and severity of nausea, vomiting, and anorexia were not significantly different between the two groups in the acute and delayed phases. Our findings suggest that combining APR with PALO and DEX does not improve the CR rate in CBDCA + ETP therapy.

A phase II trial of netupitant/palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting in patients receiving BEAM prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) patients receiving BEAM therapy. Study Design: This phase II, prospective, intention-to-treat, single-center, single-arm study involved 43 adult patients who received NEPA and dexamethasone for the prevention of CINV due to BEAM conditioning chemotherapy. An interim analysis, performed after 13 patients, determined utility versus futility, and supported continuation to full enrollment. Descriptive statistics were used to report complete response (CR), complete protection, incidence of emesis, and administration of rescue agents. A Kaplan-Meier curve depicted time to first emesis and first rescue medication. Patients self-reported levels of daily nausea descriptively via a CINV Questionnaire. Results: By study end, 13 of 43 patients achieved a CR with an average of 10.6 emesis-free days (SD 0.95) over the 11-day observation period, with no emetic events in any patient during the acute/chemotherapy phase. Nausea was well-controlled throughout the acute therapy phase (Day 1-6) and increased during the delayed phase (Day 7-11) with a peak mean level of 2.79/10 at Day 10. Aside from lower grade (≤2), headaches, constipation, and diarrhea were the most widely reported adverse effects. Conclusion: The combination of NEPA and dexamethasone is safe and effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving BEAM conditioning therapy prior to HCT. The regimen demonstrated greater effectiveness in the acute phase versus the delayed phase, with low levels of nausea throughout the study period and complete emesis prevention during chemotherapy.

Intraoperative Prophylaxis with Palonosetron for Postoperative Nausea and/or Vomiting in Adults Undergoing Cardiothoracic Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the efficacy of palonosetron, alone or with dexamethasone, in reducing postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) and its impact on hospitalization duration in patients who undergo adult cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) under general anesthesia. DESIGN: This retrospective analysis involved 540 adult patients who underwent CTS from a single-center cohort, spanning surgeries between September 2021 and March 2023. Sensitivity, logistic, and Cox regression analyses evaluated antiemetic effects, PONV risk factors, and outcomes. SETTING: At the Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC), Seattle, WA. PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing cardiothoracic surgery at VMMC during the specified period. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were categorized into the following 4 groups based on antiemetic treatment: dexamethasone, palonosetron, dexamethasone with palonosetron, and no antiemetic. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes encompassed PONV incidence within 96 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit stay duration and postoperative opioid use. Palonosetron recipients showed a significantly lower PONV rate of 42% (v controls at 63%). The dexamethasone and palonosetron combined group also demonstrated a lower rate of 40%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a notably lower 0- to 12-hour PONV rate for palonosetron recipients (9% v control at 28%). Logistic regression found decreased PONV risk (palonosetron odds ratio [OR]: 0.24; dexamethasone and palonosetron OR: 0.26). Cox regression identified varying PONV hazard ratios related to female sex, PONV history, and lower body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: This single-center retrospective study underscored palonosetron's efficacy, alone or combined with dexamethasone, in managing PONV among adult patients who undergo CTS. These findings contribute to evolving antiemetic strategies in cardiothoracic surgery, potentially impacting patient outcomes and satisfaction positively.

Impact of body weight-based dosing of palonosetron and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent adverse effect following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Palonosetron with a standard dosing (75 µg) schedule has been questioned due to its low efficiency in obese patients. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the body weight-based dosing of palonosetron in managing PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, double-blinded randomized study was conducted between August 2021 and December 2021. Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were prospectively recruited in the study. One hundred patients were randomly divided into palonosetron (Group P) and ondansetron (Group O). The demographic and clinical variables were recorded. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of PONV between the two groups during the hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were the number of rescue anti-emetic and analgesic medications and the Functional Living Index-Emesis scores. RESULTS: There were 50 patients in each group (Group P and Group O). There were significant differences in the scores of POVN, nausea, and vomiting favoring Group P. In Group P, the rate of patients using rescue anti-emetics was significantly lower. The incidence of complete response and proportion of patients with higher Functional Living Index-Emesis scores were significantly higher in patients using palonosetron. CONCLUSIONS: The use of palonosetron significantly reduced the incidence of PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. There was a significant improvement in the scores of Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients using palonosetron.

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.

Antiemetic use and chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting related hospitalization costs after highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Aim: Despite numerous available antiemetics, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still affects many patients, and CINV related hospitalizations and costs often result. Materials & methods: PrecisionQ analyzed its database to evaluate CINV related hospitalizations and costs following antiemetics use including netupitant/fosnetupitant with palonosetron (NEPA), aprepitant/fosaprepitant with ondansetron (APON) or aprepitant/fosaprepitant with palonosetron (APPA) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Results: Database analysis identified 15,583 patient records (807 NEPA, 2023 APON, 12,753 APPA) and mean CINV related hospitalization costs were lower across all patients receiving NEPA (US$301) compared with patients receiving APON ($1006, p < 0.0001) or APPA ($321, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: NEPA is associated with lower CINV related hospitalization costs compared with APON and APPA among patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy patients often experience nausea and vomiting that not only has a negative impact on the patient's quality of life but can also result in unplanned hospitalizations with high associated costs. Numerous medications and specific guidelines are available to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer. Specifically, the combination of two classes of medications (serotonin inhibitors + neurokinin type 1 inhibitors) has been shown to provide the greatest benefit. However, hospitalizations due to nausea and vomiting still occur, and providers require further information to determine the best options for their patients. In this study, the combination of netupitant/fosnetupitant with palonosetron resulted in lower hospitalization costs compared with aprepitant/fosaprepitant with ondansetron or aprepitant/fosaprepitant with palonosetron in chemotherapy patients.

Fosaprepitant for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major problem after surgery. Even with double prophylactic therapy including dexamethasone and a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, the incidence is still high in many at-risk patients. Fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is an effective antiemetic, but its efficacy and safety in combination antiemetic therapy for preventing PONV remain unclear. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, 1154 participants at high risk of PONV and undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery were randomly assigned to either a fosaprepitant group (n=577) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg i.v. dissolved in 0.9% saline 150 ml, or a placebo group (n=577) receiving 0.9% saline 150 ml before anaesthesia induction. Dexamethasone 5 mg i.v. and palonosetron 0.075 i.v. mg were each administered in both groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV (defined as nausea, retching, or vomiting) during the first 24 postoperative hours. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV during the first 24 postoperative hours was lower in the fosaprepitant group (32.4% vs 48.7%; adjusted risk difference -16.9% [95% confidence interval: -22.4 to -11.4%]; adjusted risk ratio 0.65 [95% CI: 0.57 to 0.76]; P<0.001). There were no differences in severe adverse events between groups, but the incidence of intraoperative hypotension was higher (38.0% vs 31.7%, P=0.026) and intraoperative hypertension (40.6% vs 49.2%, P=0.003) was lower in the fosaprepitant group. CONCLUSIONS: Fosaprepitant added to dexamethasone and palonosetron reduced the incidence of PONV in patients at high risk of PONV undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. Notably, it increased the incidence of intraoperative hypotension. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04853147.

Palonosetron as prophylaxis for post-discharge nausea and vomiting: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in ambulatory surgery.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 25% of ambulatory surgery patients experience post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). We aimed to investigate whether palonosetron, a long-acting anti-emetic, decreases the incidence of PDNV in high-risk patients. METHODS: In this prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 170 male and female patients undergoing ambulatory surgery under general anaesthesia, with a high predicted risk for PDNV, were randomised to receive either palonosetron 75 µg i.v. (n=84) or normal saline (n=86) before discharge. During the first 3 postoperative days (PODs), we measured outcomes using a patient questionnaire. The primary outcome was the incidence of a complete response (no nausea, vomiting, or use of rescue medication) until POD 2. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PDNV each day until POD 3. RESULTS: The incidence of a complete response until POD 2 was 48% (n=32) in the palonosetron group and 36% (n=25) in the placebo group (odds ratio 1.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.85-3.37]; P=0.131). No significant difference in the incidence of PDNV was observed between the two groups on the day of surgery (47% vs 56%; P=0.31). Significant differences in the incidence of PDNV were found on POD 1 (18% vs 34%; P=0.033) and POD 2 (9% vs 27%; P=0.007). No differences were observed on POD 3 (15% vs 13%; P=0.700). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, palonosetron did not reduce the overall incidence of post-discharge nausea and vomiting up to postoperative day 2. The lower incidence of post-discharge nausea and vomiting on poatoperative days 1 and 2 in the palonosetron group requires further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2015-003956-32.

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.

Palonosetron for prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common adverse events in patients undergoing emetogenic chemotherapy. Palonosetron, a second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), has demonstrated non-inferiority to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs for CINV in pediatric patients. Although palonosetron has a long half-life and prolonged antiemetic action, its efficacy against delayed CINV in pediatric patients is not well understood. Therefore, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron for delayed CINV in pediatric patients. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was performed. A meta-analysis was performed using forest plots, and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A funnel plot was constructed to explore publication bias. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 842 records, of which 23 full-text articles were assessed, including six RCTs. Meta-analysis of four RCTs that reported on the complete response (CR: defined as no emesis and no rescue medication) rate for delayed CINV revealed that palonosetron was statistically superior to first-generation 5-HT3 RAs (RR = 1.21 [95% CI 1.09-1.35]; p < 0.01). Although the number of studies included was small, no publication bias was observed in the funnel plots. In addition, the CR rate for overall and acute CINV was also significantly higher for palonosetron (RR = 1.25 [95% CI 1.01-1.54]; p = 0.04 and RR = 1.06 [95% CI 1.01-1.12]; p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: Palonosetron is effective in the prophylaxis of delayed CINV in pediatric patients.

The transit of oral premedication beyond the stomach in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a retrospective observational multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic and analgesic oral premedications are frequently prescribed preoperatively to enhance recovery after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. However, it is unknown whether these medications transit beyond the stomach or if they remain in the sleeve resection specimen, thereby negating their pharmacological effects. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and receiving oral premedication (slow-release tapentadol and netupitant/palonosetron) as part of enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery program. Patients were stratified into the Transit group (premedication absent in the resection specimen) and Failure-to-Transit group (premedication present in the resection specimen). Age, sex, body mass index, and presence of diabetes were compared amongst the groups. The premedication lead time (time between premedications' administration and gastric specimen resection), and the premedication presence or absence in the specimen was evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Ninety-nine patients (99%) were morbidly obese, and 17 patients (17%) had Type 2 diabetes mellitus. One hundred patients (100%) received tapentadol and 89 patients (89%) received netupitant/palonosetron. One or more tablets were discovered in the resected specimens of 38 patients (38%). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding age, sex, diabetes, or body mass index. The median (Q1‒Q3) premedication lead time was 80 min (57.8‒140.0) in the Failure-to-Transit group and 119.5 min (85.0‒171.3) in the Transit group; P = 0.006. The lead time required to expect complete absorption in 80% of patients was 232 min (95%CI:180‒310). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative oral analgesia and antiemetics did not transit beyond the stomach in 38% of patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. When given orally in combination, tapentadol and netupitant/palonosetron should be administered at least 4 h before surgery to ensure transition beyond the stomach. Future enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery guidelines may benefit from the standardization of premedication lead times to facilitate increased absorption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; number ACTRN12623000187640; retrospective registered on 22/02/2023.

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.

Intraoperative 5-HT3 receptor antagonists decrease the prevalence of postoperative delirium in older adults undergoing hip fracture surgery: a single-center retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Postoperative delirium (POD) occurs commonly in older adults, resulting in unfavorable outcomes. Several recent clinical studies have suggested that 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists can treat and prevent POD. In this retrospective study, the association between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and POD was investigated in older adults who underwent hip fracture surgery. METHODS: The electronic medical records of older adults aged ≥ 65 years who underwent hip fracture surgery between January 2011 and June 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association between 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and the occurrence of POD. In addition to the incidence of POD, anesthesia-, surgery-, and patient-related factors related to POD were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 1025 patients included, 813 (79.3%) were administered 5-HT3 receptor antagonists intraoperatively; 471 (45.9%) were administered ramosetron, and 342 (33.4%) were administered palonosetron. POD was identified in 242 patients (23.6%). Ramosetron and palonosetron reduced the POD incidence by 53% (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32‒0.71; P < 0.001) and 41% (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.39‒0.89; P = 0.011), respectively. Additionally, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class 4, and male were confirmed as risk factors for POD. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative 5-HT3 receptor antagonists may be associated with a reduced risk of POD and can be considered one of the preventive strategies for POD in older adults undergoing hip fracture surgery.

Evaluating the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily functioning in patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) in the cisplatin setting: results from a randomized phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2-3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2-4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis. RESULTS: In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL. CONCLUSION: Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04201769 . Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Evaluating the effect of anti-nausea drugs in IDO enzyme gene expression and preventing postoperative vomiting and nausea in patients undergoing general anesthesia: A Meta-analysis.

Nausea and vomiting are known as side effects after surgery. Since serotonin antagonist drugs are widely used to prevent nausea and vomiting after surgery, the present study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of this group's drugs, namely, ondansetron and palonosetron. On the other hand, recent studies have shown that the metabolites of the kynurenine pathway in the Suppression of the immune response play a role. Indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase (IDO) is the main enzyme controlling this pathway. Therefore, the effect of these two drugs on IDO gene expression was evaluated. The present study is a systematic review with meta-analysis. The search was conducted in the Cochrane, PubMed, Clinical K, and CRD databases for randomized clinical trial articles that compared two drugs, palonosetron, and ondansetron, regarding nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing surgery with general anesthesia. In the end, eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. STATA13 statistical software was used to estimate the overall risk, relative risk, and data analysis. The results showed that the number of samples in all articles was 739. The analysis of the results between 0 and 24 hours showed that palonosetron reduces the incidence of nausea by 50% and the incidence of vomiting by 79% compared to ondansetron (p=0.001). Also, there was no difference between the IDO gene expression in the two drug groups (p>0.05). In general, the analysis of the results related to the effectiveness of palonosetron and ondansetron 24 hours after surgery with a dose of 0.075 mg of palonosetron versus 4 mg of ondansetron showed that palonosetron is more effective in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients than ondansetron.

Efficacy of the dexamethasone-sparing triplet regimen for preventing cisplatin-induced emesis: a combined analysis.

Aim: To further evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of single-dose versus multiple-dose dexamethasone (DEX) against nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin. Materials & methods: Two similar non-inferiority studies were pooled. Patients were randomized to single-day DEX or multiple-day DEX plus palonosetron and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no rescue medication) during the overall phase. Results: The combined analysis included 242 patients. The absolute risk difference between single day versus multi-day DEX for CR was -2% (95% CI, -14 to 9%). Conclusion: Administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in the setting of single-day cisplatin.

We aimed at further evaluating how well the corticosteroid, dexamethasone (DEX), works as measured in two similar clinical studies of single-day versus multiple-day DEX for the prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by cisplatin, a cell-killing drug, which has high potential of triggering nausea and vomiting. In both studies, cancer patients were randomly assigned to 1-day DEX or multiple-day DEX (3­4 days) in combination with palonosetron (this antagonist attaches to a specific receptor for serotonin without triggering nausea and vomiting), and neurokinin-1 receptor-antagonists (NK-1RAs; they attach to the NK-1 receptor without triggering nausea and vomiting). The combined analysis of the two studies, which includes 242 patients, showed that a single dose of DEX is as effective as multiple-day DEX in terms of the number of patients achieving complete response (defined as no vomiting and no 'as-needed' use of antiemetics) during the 5 days after cisplatin administration. Therefore, administration of single-dose DEX offers comparable antiemetic control to multiple-day DEX when combined with palonosetron and an NK-1RA in patients undergoing single-day cisplatin.

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.