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.

Pracinostat combined with azacitidine in newly diagnosed adult acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients unfit for standard induction chemotherapy: PRIMULA phase III study.

Non-intensive therapies such as the hypomethylating agent (HMA) azacitidine (AZA) have been used in patients with AML ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy (IC) or stem cell transplant due to advanced age, comorbidities, and/or risk factors. However, response rates and survival remain dismal. Pre-clinical studies indicate the epigenetic combination of HMAs and HDAC inhibitors induce re-expression of silenced genes synergistically. The activity of pracinostat, an oral pan-HDAC inhibitor, has been shown in xenograft tumor models of AML and promising efficacy was seen in a Phase 2 study. This Phase 3 study (NCT03151408) evaluated the efficacy/safety of pracinostat administered with AZA in adult patients with newly diagnosed AML ineligible to receive IC. Patients were randomized to either pracinostat plus AZA or placebo/AZA and stratified by cytogenetic risk and ECOG status. As planned, an interim analysis was performed when 232/390 events (deaths) occurred. A total of 406 patients were randomized (203/group) at the time of the analysis. Median overall survival was 9.95 months for both treatment groups (p=0.8275). There was no significant difference between treatments in secondary efficacy endpoints, reflecting a lack of clinical response. This study did not show a benefit of adding pracinostat to AZA in elderly patients unfit for IC.

Multicenter phase IV study of palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas undergoing repeated cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Antiemetic therapy for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) generally includes a serotonin-type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist (RA). The efficacy and safety of the second-generation 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron, in patients with NHL receiving MEC was assessed. Patients received a single iv bolus injection of 0.25 mg palonosetron and chemotherapy on day 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle, and up to three further consecutive cycles. Eighty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint, the percentage of patients with a complete response in the overall phase (0-120 h after chemotherapy in each cycle), increased from 68.2% (cycle 1) to 80.5% (cycle 2), remaining high for the following cycles, and > 90% patients were emesis-free without using aprepitant during therapy. Across all cycles, 78.4% of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, but only 8% related to study drug, confirming palonosetron's good safety profile (EudraCT Number: 2008-007827-14).

Palonosetron versus older 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for nausea prevention in patients receiving chemotherapy: a multistudy analysis.

BACKGROUND: No clinical standard currently exists for the optimal management of nausea induced by emetogenic chemotherapy, 7particularly delayed nausea. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effcacy and safety of palonosetron with older 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (RAs) in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea. METHODS: Data were pooled from 4 similarly designed multicenter, randomized, double-blind, clinical trials that compared single intravenous doses of palonosetron 0.25 mg or 0.75 mg with ondansetron 32 mg, dolasetron 100 mg, or granisetron 40 µg/kg, administered 30 minutes before moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Pooled data within each chemotherapy category (MEC: n = 1,132; HEC: n = 1,781) were analyzed by a logistic regression model. Nausea endpoints were complete control rates (ie, no more than mild nausea, no vomiting, and no rescue medication), nausea-free rates, nausea severity, and requirement for rescue antiemetic/antinausea medication over 5 days following chemotherapy. Pooled safety data were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Numerically more palonosetron-treated patients were nausea-free on each day, and fewer had moderate-severe nausea. Similarly, usage of rescue medication was less frequent among palonosetron-treated patients. Complete control rates for palonosetron and older 5-HT3 RAs in the acute phase were 66% vs 63%, 52% vs 42% in the delayed phase (24-120 hours), and 46% vs 37% in the overall phase. The incidence of adverse events was similar for palonosetron and older 5-HT3 RAs. LIMITATIONS: This post hoc analysis summarized data for palonosetron and several other 5-HT3 RAs but was not powered for statistical comparisons between individual agents. Because nausea is inherently subjective, the reliability of assessments of some aspects (eg, severity) may be infuenced by interindividual variability. CONCLUSION: Palonosetron may be more effective than older 5-HT3 RAs in preventing nausea, with comparable tolerability. DISCLOSURES AND FUNDING: Dr Schwartzberg is a consultant to and Dr Cox an employee at Esai. Mr Ballinari is a member of staff at and Dr Thorn consults for Helsinn Healthcare SA. Funding to support this study and the preparation of this manuscript was provided by Eisai Inc.