Prevalence of anticipatory nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Anticipatory nausea and vomiting are unpleasant symptoms observed before undergoing chemotherapy sessions. Less is known about the occurrence of symptoms since the advent of the new neurokinin-1 antagonist. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was performed at a single Brazilian Institution. This study included breast cancer patients who received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and an appropriate antiemetic regimen (dexamethasone 10 mg, palonosetron 0.56 mg, and netupitant 300 mg in the D1 followed by dexamethasone 10 mg 12/12 h in D2 and D4). Patients used a diary to record nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication in the first two cycles of treatment. The prevalence of anticipatory nausea and vomiting was assessed before chemotherapy on day 1 of C2. RESULTS: From August 4, 2020, to August 12, 2021, 60 patients were screened, and 52 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 50.8 (28-69) years, most had stage III (53.8%), and most received chemotherapy with curative intent (94%). During the first cycle, the frequency of overall nausea and vomiting was 67.31%, and that of severe nausea and vomiting (defined as grade>4 on a 10-point visual scale or use of rescue medication) was 55.77%. Ten patients had anticipatory nausea and vomiting (19.23%). The occurrence of nausea and vomiting during C1 was the only statistically significant predictor of anticipatory nausea and vomiting (OR=16, 95%CI 2.4-670.9, p=0.0003). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of anticipatory nausea is still high in the era of neurokinin-1 antagonists, and failure of antiemetic control in C1 remains the main risk factor. All efforts should be made to control chemotherapy-induced nausea or nausea and vomiting on C1 to avoid anticipatory nausea.

Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab(R-CHOP) is one of the standard regimens. Given that R-CHOP is highly emetogenic, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention is clinically important. However, there is a paucity of studies focusing on these patients. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in preventing CINV in patients with DLBCL undergoing first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy. Seventy patients were enrolled in this single-center prospective non-comparative study conducted between November 2020 and May 2023 in South Korea. NEPA was administered 1 h prior to chemotherapy initiation on day 1. The primary endpoint of the study was the complete response rate (no emesis, and no rescue medication) during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, which were assessed over a period of 120 h post-chemotherapy. The complete response rates for NEPA were 90.0% [95% CI 80.5, 95.9] for the acute phase, 85.7% [95% CI 75.3, 92.9] for the delayed phase, and 84.3% [95% CI 73.6, 91.9] for the overall phase, with no-emesis rates (acute: 97.1% [95% CI 97.1, 99.7], delayed: 95.7% [95% CI 88.0, 99.1], overall: 92.9% [95% CI 84.1, 97.6]). NEPA was well tolerated with no severe treatment-emergent adverse events. NEPA exhibited substantial efficacy in mitigating CINV in DLBCL patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy, demonstrating high CR and no-emesis rates, and favorable safety profiles.

A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial investigating the efficacy of low-dose olanzapine in preventing nausea and vomiting associated with oxaliplatin-based and irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the clinical efficacy of a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) among female patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal tract tumors. METHODS: Patients undergoing the oxaliplatin/irinotecan chemotherapy regimen were enrolled in this prospective controlled study. The olanzapine group received a 5 mg dosage of olanzapine along with palonosetron and dexamethasone, while the control group received a standard two-combination regimen consisting of dexamethasone and palonosetron. The primary endpoints included the total protection (TP) rates for the entire age group and the subgroup aged 60 years and above. Secondary endpoints encompassed the total protection rates during the acute and delayed phases within the two age brackets, as well as the total control (TC) rates and complete remission (CR) rates across all three phases (total, acute, and delayed). Additionally, the study involved the assessment of quality of life and the collection of adverse events associated with the interventions. RESULTS: 1) Regarding the primary endpoint, the total phase TP rates within both the entire age group and the age group exceeding 60 years demonstrated superiority in the olanzapine group when compared to the control group (66.7% vs 37.25%, P = 0.003; 68.8% vs 44.4%, P = 0.044). 2) In terms of secondary endpoints, the olanzapine group exhibited superior acute phase TP rates in both age brackets when compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The olanzapine group also demonstrated higher delayed-phase TP rates, TC rates across all three phases, and CR rates within the two age brackets, although the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the quality of life in the olanzapine group surpassed that of the control group for both age brackets (P < 0.05), characterized by enhanced appetite and a higher incidence of drowsiness in the patients treated with olanzapine when compared to those in the control group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Olanzapine can enhance CINV induced by MEC regimen in female patients across all age groups, including the elderly, and therefore improve the quality of life for these patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html , identifier: ChiCTR20000368269, 25/08/2020.

Comparative efficacy of prophylactic protocols in reducing perioperative nausea and vomiting during video-assisted thoracoscopic radical resection of lung cancer.

Lung cancer, a global mortality leader, often necessitates Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic (VATS) surgery. However, post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common, highlighting a need for effective management and prevention strategies in this context. A retrospective case-control study at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital evaluated patients undergoing VATS radical resection of lung cancer between May and September 2022. Patients were categorized based on PONV prevention methods, and data encompassing demographics, surgical history, and postoperative adverse events s were analyzed to assess the association between prophylactic protocols and PONV incidence. The Netupitant and Palonosetron Hydrochloride (NEPA) group showed a significant reduction in PONV occurrences post-surgery compared to Ondansetron (ONDA) and Control groups, emphasizing NEPA's efficacy in alleviating PONV symptoms (P < 0.05). Furthermore, following VATS radical resection of lung cancer, NEPA markedly reduced the intensity of PONV symptoms in patients. Both univariate and multivariate logistic analyses corroborated that NEPA independently reduces PONV risk, with its protective effect also apparent in susceptible populations like females and non-smokers. NEPA utilization markedly reduced both the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing VATS radical resection of lung cancer, serving as an independent protective factor in mitigating PONV risk post-surgery.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety analysis of dexamethasone + palonosetron in prevention of post-embolization syndrome after D-TACE: A retrospective study.

To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone + palonosetron in the prevention of post-embolization syndrome after drug-eluting beads transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (D-TACE). The data of 278 patients who received D-TACE from January 2018 to December 2021 were collected and divided into 2 groups: D-TACE group (N = 145) and D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group (N = 133). The incidence of post-embolization syndrome and infection after D-TACE was assessed in both groups. Incidence of abdominal pain: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 56.6% versus 40.6%, P = .008; incidence of fever: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 40.0% versus 14.3%, P = .000; incidence of nausea: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 61.4% versus 39.8%, P = .001; incidence of vomiting: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 48.3% versus 21.1%, P = .000; incidence of infection: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 1.4% versus 1.5%, P = .931. The combined use of dexamethasone and palonosetron before D-TACE can effectively reduce the incidence of post-embolization syndrome and reduce the degree of side effects, but it will not increase the risk of infection.

Real-World Treatment Outcomes, Healthcare Resource Use, and Costs Associated with Antiemetics Among Cancer Patients on Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a recognized adverse outcome among patients with cancer. This retrospective study aimed to quantify the treatment outcomes, resource utilization, and costs associated with antiemetic use to prevent CINV in a broad US population who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Data from the STATinMED RWD Insights Database was collected from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. Cohorts included any patients that had at least one claim for fosnetupitant + palonosetron (NEPA) or fosaprepitant + palonosetron (APPA) and evidence of initiating cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Logistic regression was used to evaluate nausea and vomiting visits within 14 days after chemotherapy, and generalized linear models were used to examine all-cause and CINV-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. RESULTS: NEPA was associated with significantly lower rates of nausea and vomiting visits after chemotherapy (p = 0.0001), including 86% greater odds of nausea and vomiting events for APPA during the second week after chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86; p = 0.0003). The mean numbers of all-cause inpatient visits (p = 0.0195) and CINV-related inpatient and outpatient visits were lower among NEPA patients (p < 0.0001). These differences corresponded to 57% of NEPA patients and 67% of APPA patients having one or more inpatient visits (p = 0.0002). All-cause outpatient costs and CINV-related inpatient costs were also significantly lower for NEPA (p < 0.0001). The mean number of all-cause outpatient visits, all-cause inpatient costs, and CINV-related outpatient costs was not significantly different between groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study based on claims data, NEPA was associated with lower rates of nausea and vomiting and lower CINV-related HCRU and costs compared to APPA following cisplatin-based chemotherapy. These results complement clinical trial data and published economic models supporting the use of NEPA as a safe, effective, and cost-saving antiemetic for patients undergoing chemotherapy.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: an international perspective.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of oral netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.5 mg), compared to available treatments in Spain after aprepitant generic introduction in the market, and to discuss results in previously performed analyses in different wordwide settings. METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, complete protection, complete response at best and incomplete response, was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NEPA versus common treatment options in Spain during 5 days after chemotherapy. Incremental costs including treatment costs and treatment failure management cost as well as incremental effects including quality adjusted life days (QALDs) and emesis-free days were compared between NEPA and the comparator arms. The primary outcomes were cost per avoided emetic event and cost per QALDs gained. RESULTS: NEPA was dominant (more effective and less costly) against aprepitant combined with palonosetron, and fosaprepitant combined with granisetron, while, compared to generic aprepitant plus ondansetron, NEPA showed an incremental cost per avoided emetic event of €33 and cost per QALD gained of €125. CONCLUSION: By most evaluations, NEPA is a dominant or cost-effective treatment alternative to current antiemetic standards of care in Spain during the first 5 days of chemotherapy treatment in cancer patients, despite the introduction of generics. These results are in line with previously reported analyses throughout different international settings.

[Antiemetic Therapy for Vomiting and Nausea Related to Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy Using Cisplatin in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma].

Combination therapy using multiple antiemetic drugs is recommended for intravenous administration of cisplatin, a highly emetogenic agent, whereas a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist alone is commonly used in hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin for hepatocellular carcinoma owing to its less toxicity than that in the intravenous administration. Given that optimal antiemetic therapy is not yet established, we retrospectively investigated the efficacy of antiemetic drugs for hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin. This study enrolled 72 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who received hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin at Kurashiki Central Hospital between January 2011 and May 2019. A 5-HT3 receptor antagonist was used in all cases, while aprepitant and/or dexamethasone were used concomitantly in 6 cases. After chemotherapy, a complete response rate for 5 days was achieved in 73.6% of the patients; however, complete control could be achieved only in 29.2%. During these 5 days, both rates were lower on days 2-5 than on day 1. In addition, younger age was associated with worse control rates. Our findings suggest that more effective antiemetic therapy is needed for hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using cisplatin, especially in non-elderly patients.

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.

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.

Effect of Palonosetron on Physical Symptoms of Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a typical and unpleasant physical symptom that occurs in patients after surgery, and it may be one of the most challenging elements of the recovery process. PONV can be caused by a variety of factors, including surgery itself, anesthesia, or medications. Palonosetron is a medication that is now licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of this ailment. The efficacy of palonosetron in reducing physical symptoms in patients following surgery was investigated in this meta-analysis and comprehensive review. Methods: Following a quick search of databases such as CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, the Science quotation index's Web site, the United States clinical trial check-in, the United Kingdom clinical trial check-in, the New Zealand clinical trial check-in, and the Australia check-in, as well as outlines of major anesthesia meetings held in the previous five years, we were able to get a good start on our research. Growing adults who had surgery and were given other drugs were compared to individuals who did get palonosetron in randomized controlled trials. Results: A total of 8324 participants were recruited in 10 different clinical studies. It has been shown that palonosetron may significantly reduce the 24-hour PONV incidence and 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.86. When comparing the 6-hour and 48-hour time periods, the incidences of experiencing PONV were neither statistically different (RR: 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.61-1.09) or considerably different (RR: 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-1.10). Following in a similar vein, there was no significant difference between the groups in the occurrence of PONV after 48 hours (RR: 0.82, 95 percent CI: 0.59-1.14). The most often reported side effects of the medicine were headaches and dizziness, which were the most common. Regardless of the drug used, the difference in adverse reactions was not statistically significant. Conclusion: When it comes to the prevention of early PONV, it has been shown that palonosetron is more effective than other medications. Palonosetron, on the other hand, has been demonstrated to be more effective than other medications in preventing vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.

Does a single dose of palonosetron have any role in preventing acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric osteosarcoma patients without dexamethasone? A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troublesome side-effect of chemotherapy in pediatric patients undergoing osteosarcoma treatment. In this context, the role of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists needs to be explored. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the superiority of single-dose palonosetron over granisetron in pediatric patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for osteosarcoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized study, pediatric patients were assessed in terms of acute nausea and vomiting following HEC for osteosarcoma. These children were assigned to group 1 (palonosetron) and group 2 (granisetron) without any other antiemetic prophylaxis. The primary outcome variable was the children's segment with a complete response (CR) during the acute phase of the 1st on-study chemotherapy cycle. The risk factors associated with the emesis were analyzed. The patients were followed up for the first 24 h after chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total number of 200 children were evaluated in terms of the response, and other factors that might alter the response were assessed in the 2 groups. These 200 children underwent 604 blocks of chemotherapy. Complete responses were documented in 83% and 72% of children receiving palonosetron and granisetron, respectively, during the acute phase. Only dexamethasone, used as a rescue medication, was found to be a significant risk factor that predisposed to the response (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose palonosetron is an effective alternative to granisetron for preventing CINV in children receiving HEC for osteosarcoma.

Cost-effectiveness of palonosetron and dexamethasone-based triple and quadruple regimens in preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness analyses that consider all currently used antiemetics in the case of emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have not been performed yet. We aim to compare the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine (OLA), or/and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1-RAs), in combination with palonosetron (PAL) and dexamethasone (DEX) in preventing highly emetogenic CINV. METHODS: Two decision analytic models were constructed. The first model was based on overall complete response (CR); the second model was based on rate of absence of nausea. Four antiemetic regimens PAL + DEX, NK-1-RAs + PAL + DEX, OLA + PAL + DEX, and PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA were compared in terms of cost, overall CR and rate of absence of nausea. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) estimates were calculated. The study was from the US payer perspective. RESULTS: In terms of CR, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest gains in the percentage of CR among all treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $4220 versus PAL + DEX, $4656 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $16,471 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. In term of rate of absence of nausea, the PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA was associated with the highest rate of absence of nausea among all the treatment regimens at base case ICERs of $2291 versus PAL + DEX, $1304 versus NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, $2657 versus OLA + PAL + DEX. CONCLUSION: from an economic perspective, our study revealed that whether to use overall CR or/and rate of absence of nausea as determinants in the antiemetic decision for the CINV patients, the CR-based-, and rate of absence of nausea-based cost-effectiveness analyses, showed negotiable ICER estimates for the treatment PAL + NK-1-RA + DEX + OLA over the combinations PAL + DEX, NK-1-RA + PAL + DEX, and OLA + PAL + DEX regimens.

Netupitant/palonosetron without dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting in patients with multiple myeloma receiving high-dose melphalan for autologous stem cell transplantation: a single-center experience.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most frequent adverse events compromising quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). However, CINV prophylaxis is still lacking uniformity for high-dose melphalan (HDM), which is used to condition patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is administered with dexamethasone (DEXA) for CINV prevention in several chemotherapy regimens. Our study aims to assess the efficacy of NEPA, without DEXA, in preventing CINV in 106 adult patients with MM receiving HDM and ASCT. All patients had antiemetic prophylaxis with multiple doses of NEPA 1 h before the start of conditioning and after 72 h and 120 h. A complete response (CR) was observed in 99 (93%) patients at 120 h (overall phase). The percentage of patients with complete control was 93%. The CR rate during the acute phase was 94% (n = 100). During the delayed phase, the CR rate was 95% (n = 101). Grade 1 nausea and vomiting were experienced by 82% and 12% of the patients, respectively. Grade 2 nausea was reported in 18% and vomiting in 10% of patients. Our results showed, for the first time, that NEPA, without DEXA, was a well-tolerated and effective antiemetic option for MM patients receiving HDM followed by ASCT.