Download the Free Unbound MEDLINE PubMed App to your smartphone or tablet.
Available for iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Android.
- Palonosetron for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- Expert Opin Pharmacother 2014 Oct 17.:1-10.
Introduction: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is associated with a significant deterioration in quality of life. The emetogenicity of the chemotherapeutic agents, repeated chemotherapy cycles, and patient risk factors significantly influence CINV. The introduction of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists has been a major factor in the improvement of the prevention of chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis. Palonosetron , a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a different half-life, a different binding capacity, and a different mechanism of action than the first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists appears to be the most effective agent in this drug class. Areas covered: Palonosetron's chemistry, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, clinical efficacy, including comparison with other antiemetics, role in controlling nausea, potential role in multi-day chemotherapy and bone marrow transplantation, and overall safety are discussed. Expert opinion: The clinical data in the literature have established palonosetron as the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist of choice in terms of efficacy and safety for the prevention of CINV for patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Three international guidelines have listed palonosetron as the preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Due to its higher efficacy, the use of palonosetron may be more cost effective compared to the generic first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Clinical organizations' pharmacy and formulary committees should consider efficacy when making recommendations for agents for the prevention of CINV.
- Antiemetic therapy of fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone combined with cisplatin-based chemotherapy for head and neck carcinomas. [Journal Article]
- Acta Otolaryngol 2014 Nov; 134(11):1198-204.
Abstract Conclusion: Concomitant antiemetic therapy comprising fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone is effective for head and neck carcinoma.A patient diary was constructed to determine the effectiveness of concomitant antiemetic therapy with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant), 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (palonosetron), and dexamethasone in accordance with guidelines.Subjects comprised 41 patients who received 71 courses of chemotherapy, along with fosaprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. A patient diary was compiled concerning the presence/absence of vomiting, vomiting episodes, presence/absence of rescue therapy, food intake, presence/absence of nausea, and general condition.The frequency of the primary end point of complete response in the overall phase was 69.0%. The proportion of patients with no vomiting in the overall phase was 90.1%. In the acute phase, the proportion of no nausea and slight nausea together was 91.5%, no change in and slightly reduced food intake together was 87.3%, and the proportion of good general condition and relatively good general condition was 85.9%. In the delayed phase, the proportion of no nausea and slight nausea together was 56.3%, no change in and slightly reduced food intake together was 43.7%, and the proportion of good general condition and relatively good general condition together was 53.5%.
- Evaluation of the ability of continuous palonosetron infusion, using a patient-controlled analgesia device, to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting. [Journal Article]
- Korean J Anesthesiol 2014 Aug; 67(2):110-4.
The efficacy of palonosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), as well as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, has already been demonstrated in multiple clinical studies. The purpose of this study was to determine whether continuous infusion of palonosetron following single injection could reduce PONV to a greater extent than single injection only of palonosetron.In total, 132 women were enrolled in the study. All subjects were over the age of 20 years and were scheduled to undergo gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. In both groups, patients received 0.075 mg of palonosetron intravenously, immediately before induction of anesthesia. In the continuous palonosetron infusion group, 0.075 mg (1.5 ml) of palonosetron was added to the patient-controlled analgesia device. In the single-injection palonosetron group, 1.5 ml of normal saline was added.The incidence of PONV 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the continuous palonosetron infusion group than the single-injection palonosetron group (31.8 vs. 56.1%, P = 0.009).Continuous palonosetron infusion, following single injection, reduces the incidence of PONV compared with single injection only.
- Palonosetron in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy. [Journal Article, Review]
- Cancer Manag Res 2014.:329-37.
Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a key component of treatment for patients with cancer. Guidelines are available to assist prescribers in the management of CINV associated with single-day chemotherapy regimens. However, currently there are no clear guidelines for management of CINV in patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy regimens. Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are a mainstay in preventing CINV, and palonosetron, given its longer half-life and duration of action relative to other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, may be a useful option for managing CINV in multiple-day chemotherapy. Here we provide an overview of CINV and CINV treatment options, with a focus on palonosetron. We describe existing challenges in managing CINV, and discuss two patients receiving multiple-day chemotherapy, in whom CINV was managed successfully with palonosetron.
- Addressing the value of novel therapies in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2014 Sep 16.:1-10.
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a troubling side effect of cancer treatment and is often poorly controlled. As a consequence, CINV is associated with substantially increased costs of care and significant interference with patients' lives. Inadequate control over CINV results from factors that include failure to provide guideline-adherent prophylactic medication and limitations in available therapies. Newer serotonin receptor antagonists, such as palonosetron, and addition of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists to treatment have significantly decreased both acute and delayed CINV. A fixed-dose combination of palonosetron and a new NK-1 receptor, netupitant, is significantly superior to palonosetron alone and has small, but consistent, numerical advantages over aprepitant plus palonosetron for prevention of CINV. The combination of a serotonin receptor antagonist plus an NK-1 receptor antagonist has been shown to be cost-effective for prevention of CINV and the availability of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron may enhance this benefit.
- 5-Hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonists and cardiac side effects. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- Expert Opin Drug Saf 2014 Sep 6.:1-16.
Introduction: 5-Hydroxytryptamine3-receptor antagonists (5-HT3-RA) are the most widely used antiemetics in oncology, and although tolerability is high, QTC prolongation has been observed in some patients. Areas covered: The purpose of this article is to outline the risk of cardiac adverse events (AEs) from 5-HT3-RAs, with focus on the three most commonly used, ondansetron, granisetron and palonosetron. Expert opinion: Most of the studies analyze electrocardiogram (ECG) changes after 5-HT3-RA administrations in healthy, young adults, or in noncancer patients to treat postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Only a few studies have addressed ECG changes in cancer patients treated for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Investigations in cancer patients are essential, because these patients are older and have a higher incidence of comorbidity, than those usually included in clinical trials. Furthermore, polypharmacy is frequent and drug-drug interactions between chemotherapy and other QTc-prolonging drugs may influence the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the 5-HT3-RAs. During the next 10 - 15 years a huge increase in the number of cancer patients is expected, primarily in the group of 65-plus-year old. Therefore it will be crucial to address the incidence of cardiac AEs in cancer patients with known heart disease receiving chemotherapy and a 5-HT3 RA for the prophylaxis of CINV.
- Comparison of an extended-release formulation of granisetron (APF530) versus palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority phase 3 trial. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- Support Care Cancer 2014 Sep 2.
Subcutaneous APF530 provides controlled sustained release of granisetron to prevent acute (0-24 h) and delayed (24-120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). This randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial compared APF530 and palonosetron in preventing acute and delayed CINV after moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).Patients receiving single-day MEC or HEC received single-dose APF530 250 or 500 mg subcutaneously (SC) (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg. Primary objectives were to establish APF530 noninferiority to palonosetron for preventing acute CINV following MEC or HEC and delayed CINV following MEC and to determine APF530 superiority to palonosetron for preventing delayed CINV following HEC. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR [using CI difference for APF530 - palonosetron]). A lower confidence bound greater than -15 % indicated noninferiority.In the modified intent-to-treat population (MEC = 634; HEC = 707), both APF530 doses were noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV after MEC (CRs 74.8 % [-9.8, 9.3] and 76.9 % [-7.5, 11.4], respectively, vs. 75.0 % palonosetron) and after HEC (CRs 77.7 % [-11.5, 5.5] and 81.3 % [-7.7, 8.7], respectively, vs. 80.7 % palonosetron). APF530 500 mg was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing delayed CINV after MEC (CR 58.5 % [-9.5, 12.1] vs. 57.2 % palonosetron) but not superior in preventing delayed CINV after HEC. Adverse events were generally mild and unrelated to treatment, the most common (excluding injection-site reactions) being constipation.A single subcutaneous APF530 injection offers a convenient alternative to palonosetron for preventing acute and delayed CINV after MEC or HEC.
- Palonosetron and aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients indicated for laparoscopic gynaecologic surgery: a double-blind randomised trial. [Journal Article]
- BMC Anesthesiol 2014.:68.
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common postsurgical complications. Palonosetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist, is effective for PONV prevention. Herein, we compared palonosetron and aprepitant (a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist) for PONV prevention in patients indicated for laparoscopic gynaecologic surgery.Ninety-three patients who were scheduled to undergo laparoscopic gynaecologic surgery under general anaesthesia were assigned to receive either a single intravenous injection of 0.075-mg palonosetron or 40-mg oral aprepitant in a double-blind randomised trial. The primary efficacy end points included complete response (visual analogue scale [VAS] nausea score <4 and no use of rescue therapy) 0-48 h after surgery. Nausea severity (0-10) and use of rescue therapy were monitored for 0-48 h. The secondary efficacy end points were the effect of aprepitant quantified using a 10-point VAS for pain, consumption of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, and use of rescue analgesics.Aprepitant was non-inferior to palonosetron in terms of complete response 0-48 hours after surgery (74% vs. 77%). At 0 and 2 h after administration, the nausea severity with 40-mg aprepitant was significantly lesser than that with 0.075-mg palonosetron (P < 0.05). At 6 and 24 h after administration, fentanyl consumption with 40-mg aprepitant was significantly lower than that with 0.075-mg palonosetron. Greater amounts of rescue analgesics were required in the aprepitant group.Palonosetron and aprepitant were both effective for PONV prevention in the patients indicated for laparoscopic gynaecologic surgery. The drugs can be used in combination for multimodal therapy because they bind to different receptors. More research is needed to evaluate the effects of aprepitant on pain management in humans.
- The Efficacy of Palonosetron Plus Dexamethasone 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]
- Am J Clin Oncol 2014 Aug 20.
The prevention of chemotherapy-induced and radiotherapy-induced emesis is recommended by several guidelines; however, there are no evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics in concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron and dexamethasone during CCRT.This is a nonrandomized, prospective, single-center, open phase II study.Twenty-six consecutive patients with cervical carcinoma were treated with daily low-dose cisplatin (8 mg/m/d)-based CCRT (2 Gy/d, 25 fractions, 5 times a week). All patients received 0.75 mg of palonosetron on day 1 of each week and 4 mg of oral dexamethasone daily. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a complete response, which was defined as no emetic episodes and no antiemetic rescue medication during treatment.Planned daily low-dose cisplatin-based CCRT was successful without delay or interruption in 46% (12/26) of the patients. The mean dose of total cisplatin was 184 (range, 136 to 200) mg/m.No patient vomited during the treatment period. The complete response rate during CCRT was 100%. A total of 81% patients were completely free from nausea. All patients tolerated the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone and completed the scheduled regimen. Five patients exhibited grade 1 Cushingoid features that resolved after treatment.Antiemetic therapy comprising palonosetron and dexamethasone provided complete protection from nausea and vomiting in patients with cervical cancer receiving daily low-dose cisplatin-based CCRT.
- Palonosetron versus ondansetron as rescue medication for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, multicenter, open-label study. [JOURNAL ARTICLE]
- BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2014 Aug 16; 15(1):45.
This study compared palonosetron and ondansetron as rescue medications for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients who received prophylactic ondansetron. Although guidelines recommend use of an agent from a different class when prophylaxis has failed, palonosetron has unique properties relative to other serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Prior trials assessing its use for rescue have had conflicting results. Although palonosetron has compared favorably with ondansetron for PONV prevention, the drugs have not been compared in the rescue setting of failure of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist prophylaxis.This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravenous palonosetron 0.075 mg and intravenous ondansetron 4 mg in patients experiencing PONV following laparoscopic abdominal or gynecological surgery despite prophylactic ondansetron.Of 239 patients screened, 220 were enrolled and 98 were treated for PONV: 48 and 50 in the palonosetron and ondansetron arms, respectively. Complete control during 72 hours after study drug administration was achieved in 25.0% of palonosetron recipients and 18.0% of ondansetron recipients (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.2, 23.3; p = 0.40). Corresponding incidences of vomiting were 29.2% for palonosetron and 48.0% for ondansetron (95% CI, -0.06, 37.7; p = 0.057), and 62.5% and 56.0% required additional rescue treatment, respectively (95% CI, -25.9, 12.9; p = 0.52). Other than a similar incidence of procedural pain in the 2 groups, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, which were generally mild, were headache (14.6% vs 12.0%), constipation (8.3% vs 10.0%), and dizziness (6.3% vs 8.0%), for the palonosetron and ondansetron groups, respectively.Palonosetron and ondansetron did not show differences in the primary efficacy endpoint of CC during the 72 hours after study drug administration. There was a trend toward less emesis in the 0-72 h time period favoring palonosetron. While larger studies are needed to fully assess any clinical benefits of palonosetron to rescue patients who have failed ondansetron prophylaxis for PONV, the benefit, if any, would be limited based on this study.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00967499 (Registered August 27, 2009).