- Randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of palonosetron versus granisetron in the triplet regimen for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after highly emetogenic chemotherapy: TRIPLE study. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- Ann Oncol 2016 Jun 29.
There has been no phase III study of comparing the efficacy of first- and second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in the triplet regimen with dexamethasone and aprepitant for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).Patients with a malignant solid tumor who would receive HEC containing 50 mg/m(2) or more cisplatin were randomly assigned to either palonosetron (0.75 mg) arm (Arm P) or granisetron (1 mg) arm (Arm G), on day 1, both arms with dexamethasone (12 mg on day 1 and 8 mg on days 2-4) and aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-3). The primary end point was complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching and no rescue medication) at the 0-120 h period and secondary end points included complete control (CC; no vomiting/retching, no rescue medication, and no more than mild nausea) and total control (TC; no vomiting/retching, no rescue medication, and no nausea).Between July 2011 and June 2012, 842 patients were enrolled. Of 827 evaluable, 272 of 414 patients (65.7%) in Arm P had a CR at the 0-120 h period when compared with 244 of 413 (59.1%) in Arm G (P= 0.0539). Both arms had the same CR rate of 91.8% at the acute (0-24 h) period, while at the delayed (24-120 h) period, Arm P had a significantly higher CR rate than Arm G (67.2% versus 59.1%; P= 0.0142). In secondary end points, Arm P had significantly higher rates than Arm G at the 0-120 h period (CC rate: 63.8% versus 55.9%, P= 0.0234; TC rate: 47.6% versus 40.7%, P= 0.0369) and delayed periods (CC rate: 65.2% versus 55.9%, P= 0.0053; TC rate: 48.6% versus 41.4%, P= 0.0369).The present study did not show the superiority of palonosetron when compared with granisetron in the triplet regimen regarding the primary end point.UMIN000004863.
- Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting by risk profile: role of netupitant/palonosetron. [Journal Article, Review]
- Ther Clin Risk Manag 2016.:917-25.
As recommended by most recent antiemetic guidelines, the optimal prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) requires the combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) with an NK1-RA. Moreover, the major predictors of acute and delayed CINV include: young age, female sex, platinum- or anthracycline-based chemotherapy, nondrinker status, emesis in the earlier cycles of chemotherapy, and previous history of motion/morning sickness. Despite improved knowledge of the pathophysiology of CINV and advances in the availability of active antiemetics, an inconsistent compliance with their use has been reported, thereby resulting in suboptimal control of CINV in several cases. In this scenario, a new anti-emetic drug is now available, which seems to be able to guarantee better prophylaxis of CINV and improvement of adherence to guidelines. In fact, netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a ready-to-use single oral capsule, combining an NK1-RA (netupitant) and a 5-HT3-RA (palonosetron), which is to be taken 1 hour before the administration of chemotherapy, ensuring the coverage from CINV for 5 days. We reviewed the role of NEPA in patients at high risk of CINV receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In these patients, NEPA plus dexamethasone, as compared to standard treatments, achieved superior efficacy in all primary and secondary end points during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, including nausea assessment. Moreover, these results were also achieved in female patients receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. NEPA represents a real step forward in the prophylaxis of CINV.
- Efficacy benefit of an NK1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA) in patients receiving carboplatin: supportive evidence with NEPA (a fixed combination of the NK1 RA, netupitant, and palonosetron) and aprepitant regimens. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- Support Care Cancer 2016 Jun 22.
Antiemetic guideline recommendations are inconsistent as to whether a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) should be administered with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5HT3) RA + dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving carboplatin. Patients receiving cisplatin routinely receive an NK1 RA-containing regimen with a resulting 14-22 % benefit in no emesis rates over a 5-HT3 RA/DEX control. Recent studies suggest a similar benefit in patients receiving carboplatin. NEPA is the first fixed antiemetic combination agent and comprises the highly selective NK1 RA, netupitant, and pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (PALO). This paper presents the efficacy of NEPA in the subset of patients receiving carboplatin in a phase 3 trial (NCT01376297), in the context of aprepitant (APR) data in the carboplatin setting.One hundred ninety-six patients (47 % of all study patients: n = 145 NEPA + DEX; n = 51 APR + PALO + DEX) received carboplatin in a multinational, double-blind, randomized phase 3 study. Complete response (CR: no emesis/rescue) and no significant nausea (NSN: score ≤25 on 100 mm visual analog scale) rates were calculated.Cycle 1-4 overall (0-120 h) CR rates were similar for NEPA (80, 91, 92, and 93 %) and APR (82, 88, 88, and 90 %). Overall NSN rates were also similar (NEPA 84-96 %; APR 82-90 %).Response rates for NEPA and APR regimens were similar and consistent with prior studies evaluating the contribution of adding NK1 RAs in patients receiving carboplatin. Considering such evidence, guideline groups/practitioners should consider giving a NK1 RA antiemetic triplet in patients receiving carboplatin.
- New treatments on the horizon for chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- Expert Opin Pharmacother 2016 Jun 27.:1-7.
Antiemetic prophylaxis for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the development of new antiemetic drugs are expanding areas of research. However, studies of antiemetic prophylaxis in chemoradiotherapy have not been prioritised, and little is known about the proper timing, duration, and combination of antiemetic drugs for the prevention of chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (C-RINV).The article summarises the available antiemetic studies, the evidence for antiemetic prophylaxis of C-RINV, and the future perspectives for antiemetic research in chemoradiotherapy.Antiemetic prophylaxis for patients receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy has, for many years, been an orphan research area. The distinction between acute and delayed nausea and vomiting does not apply to fractionated radiotherapy, and prophylaxis should be considered to cover the entire course of treatment and not only the acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The best prophylaxis in women receiving fractionated radiotherapy and concomitant weekly cisplatin is a combination of the neurokinin receptor antagonist fosaprepitant with palonosetron and dexamethasone. Even with this three-drug combination nausea is a significant problem and the effect of multi-receptor targeting antiemetics such as olanzapine and amisulpride should be explored in this setting.
- Development and validation of a rapid LC-MS/MS method for simultaneous determination of netupitant and palonosetron in human plasma and its application to a pharmacokinetic study. [Journal Article]
- J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 2016 Aug 1.:187-93.
A simple liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method was firstly developed and validated for simultaneous determination of netupitant and palonosetron in human plasma using ibrutinib as the internal standard (IS). Following liquid-liquid extraction, the compounds were eluted isocratically on a Phenomenex C18 column (50mm×2.0mm, 3μm) with the mobile phase consisting of acetonitrile and 10mM ammonium acetate buffer (pH 9.0) (89:11, v/v) at the flow rate of 0.3mL/min. The monitored ion transitions were m/z 579.5→522.4 for netupitant, m/z 297.3→110.2 for palonosetron and m/z 441.2→138.1 for IS. Chromatographic run time was 2.5min per injection, which made it possible to analyze more than 300 of samples per day. The assay exhibited a linear dynamic range of 5-1000ng/mL for netupitant and 0.02-10ng/mL for palonosetron in plasma. The values for both within- and between-day precision and accuracy were well within the generally accepted criteria for analytical methods (<15%). Selectivity, linearity, lower limit of quantification (LLOQ), accuracy, precision, stability, matrix effect, recovery and carry-over effect were evaluated for all analytes. The method is simple, rapid, and has been applied successfully to a pharmacokinetic study of netupitant and palonosetron in healthy volunteers.
- Efficacy of palonosetron plus aprepitant in preventing chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and emesis in patients receiving daily low-dose cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy for uterine cervical cancer: a phase II study. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- Support Care Cancer 2016 Jun 10.
Antiemetic recommendations during concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cisplatin-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT)) have not been established yet. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the combination of palonosetron plus aprepitant, without routine use of dexamethasone, could alleviate chemoradiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CRINV).This was a non-randomized, prospective, single-center, open phase II study. Patients with cervical cancer, who were treated with daily low-dose cisplatin (8 mg/m(2)/day) and concurrent radiation (2 Gy/day, 25 fractions, five times a week), were enrolled in this study. All patients received intravenous palonosetron (0.75 mg on day 1 of each week) and oral aprepitant (125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2 and 3 of each week). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a complete response, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of antiemetic rescue medication during the treatment.Twenty-seven patients (median age, 50 years; range, 33-72 years) were enrolled in this study between June 2013 and April 2014. A total of 13 (48 %) patients showed a complete response to the antiemetic regimen, while 8 patients (30 %) had emetic episodes and 6 patients (22 %) used rescue medication without emetic episodes. No severe adverse effects caused by palonosetron plus aprepitant were observed.The combination of palonosetron plus aprepitant was permissive for the prevention of CRINV. This regimen should be considered for patients in whom dexamethasone is contraindicated or not well tolerated.
- Phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous palonosetron (PAL) in primary malignant glioma (MG) patients receiving standard radiotherapy (RT) and concomitant temozolomide (TMZ). [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- Support Care Cancer 2016 Jun 6.
In malignant glioma (MG) patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) with concomitant temozolomide, chemoradiation-induced nausea and vomiting (cRINV) degrades quality of life (QoL) and reduces treatment adherence, which thereby potentially compromises cancer control.We conducted a 6-week phase II single-arm trial of PAL, a second-generation 5-HT3RA antiemetic, for cRINV prevention in MG patients receiving radiation therapy (RT; 54-60 Gy) and concomitant daily temozolomide (TMZ; 75 mg/m(2)/dX42d). Each week before radiation, patients received single-dose palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg IV (total = 6 doses). With safety/tolerability as the primary endpoint, the study was designed to differentiate between toxicity rates of 25 % (unacceptable) and 10 % (acceptable) toxicity rates. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients achieving cRINV complete response (CR: no emesis or rescue antiemetic) and QoL. Patients reported adverse effects in Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events diaries; recorded vomiting, nausea, and rescue medication use in diaries (which were used to assess cRINV-CR); and reported QoL 4 days/week using the Modified Functional Living Index-Emesis (M-FLIE) and Osoba nausea and vomiting/retching modules.We enrolled 38 patients (mean age 59 years, 55 % female, 95 % white, 68 % used oral corticosteroids, 76 % reported low alcohol use). Four patients (10.5 %) experienced unacceptable treatment-related toxicity, defined as any grade 3, 4, or 5 non-hematologic toxicity. M-FLIE and Osoba scores showed no evidence of treatment impact on QoL. Overall, cRINV-CR rates for 6 weeks ranged from 67-79 %.Single-dose weekly PAL is a safe and tolerable antiemetic for cRINV prevention in MG patients receiving standard RT and concomitant TMZ.
- Economic evaluation of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in combination with dexamethasone for the prevention of 'overall' nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese adult patients. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- J Oncol Pharm Pract 2016 Jun 3.
Two pivotal Phase III trials compared the efficacy of palonosetron, ondansetron and granisetron, combined with dexamethasone, for the prevention of nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. However, an economic evaluation of these three regimens in the real-world setting of Chinese adult patients has not been determined.To estimate, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, which of these frequently used strategies consisting of 0.25 mg palonosetron (0.25P), 16 mg ondansetron (Onda), and 3 mg granisetron (Gran), is the most cost-effective option in patients following highly emetogenic chemotherapy.A Markov decision-analytic model was developed. The health and economic outcomes of the three strategies; 0.25P, Onda, and Gran were investigated. The clinical and utility data were taken from published studies. The cost data were calculated according to current local Chinese practices. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of uncertainty regarding the results.The base-case analysis showed that the 0.25P strategy yielded maximum health benefits compared with the other two strategies. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the Gran strategy was the most cost-effective approach when the willingness-to-pay threshold was not more than US$22,515/quality-adjusted life year. Moreover, palonosetron is not cost-effective in preventing 'overall' nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Chinese patients.Our analysis suggests that, compared with palonosetron and ondansetron, 3 mg granisetron may be a cost-effective treatment option in the current Chinese healthcare setting.
- Omission of dexamethasone from antiemetic treatment for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with hepatitis B infection or diabetes mellitus. [Journal Article]
- J Community Support Oncol 2016 May; 14(5):210-4.
Chemotherapy with anthracycline- and cyclophosphamide-containing regimens are classified as highly emetogenic. Combinatory treatments of aprepitant (Apr), palonosetron (Pal), or granisetron (Gra) with dexamethasone are recommended as antiemetic treatments for such emetogenic chemotherapy. We retrospectively examined whether omission of dexamethasone is tolerable for patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and diabetes mellitus (DM), for whom it is recommended not receive dexamethasone.During August 2009 and September 2007, we reviewed the medical records of patients with breast cancer who were HBV carriers or had been diagnosed with DM. 97 patients were treated with anthracycline- and cyclophosphamide- containing regimens with omission of dexamethasone in antiemetic treatment because of their HBV or DM status.Results The number of patients treated with Gra only, Apr and Gra, Apr and Pal, were 29, 29, and 39, respectively. Complete response (CR) in the acute phase (0-<24 hours after chemotherapy) or delayed phase (24-120 hours after chemotherapy) for Gra only, Apr-Gra, and Apr-Pal was 44.8% and 44.8%, 72.4% and 72.4%, and 76.9% and 74.4%, respectively. Complete control (CC) in the acute or delayed phase in each regimen for Gra only, Apr-Gra, and Apr-Pal was 31.0% and 27.6%, 48.2% and 51.7%, and 46.2% and 46.2%, respectively. Apr-Gra or Apr-Pal tended to be superior to Gra only in CR and CC in both the acute and delayed phases. HBV reactivation or aggravation of DM control was not observed in any of the 3 therapy options. CR and CC were about 20% higher for the dexamethasone-containing regimen than for the non-dexamethasone regimen in both the acute and delayed phases.Omission of dexamethasone in antiemetic treatment is tolerable when anthracycline- and cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy is administered to patients with breast cancer who have comorbidities of being HBV carriers or of DM.
- Aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone versus palonosetron and dexamethasone for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer: a randomized crossover phase II trial (KDOG 1002). [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- Anticancer Drugs 2016 May 31.
We conducted a randomized trial to compare the safety and effectiveness of aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone (AGD) with those of palonosetron and dexamethasone (PD) in patients who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients with esophageal or gastric cancer who were scheduled to receive HEC including at least 60 mg/m of cisplatin as the first-line treatment were randomly assigned to receive AGD (oral aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-3; intravenous granisetron 3 mg on day 1; intravenous dexamethasone 6.6 mg on day 1 and oral dexamethasone 4 mg on days 2-3) or PD (intravenous palonosetron 0.75 mg on day 1; intravenous dexamethasone 13.2 mg on day 1 and oral dexamethasone 8 mg on days 2-3). The primary endpoint was a complete response during the overall study period (0-120 h after the start of chemotherapy) in the first cycle. Eighty-five patients were enrolled, and 84 were eligible. The complete response rate did not differ between the treatment groups, but the proportion of patients with no vomiting was significantly higher in the AGD group than in the PD group (81.4 vs. 58.5%; P=0.031). The results of a quality-of-life survey indicated that the proportion of patients with no or minimal impact on daily life in the vomiting domain was significantly higher in the AGD group (79.1 vs. 53.7%; P=0.020). The primary endpoint of complete response was not achieved, but AGD seems to be more effective than PD for the prevention of HEC-induced vomiting.