We demonstrated the non-inferiority of a dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing (single-dose) regimen with NEPA, a netupitant/palonosetron fixed combination, for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by cisplatin. This pre-planned exploratory analysis assessed the effect of the DEX-sparing regimen on a patient's food intake. Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m2) were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either no further DEX (DEX1), or oral DEX (4 mg BID) on days 2-4 (DEX4). Patient-reported endpoint maintenance of usual daily food intake was assessed during the 5-days post-chemotherapy. The relationship between usual daily food intake and CINV control, pre-chemotherapy self-rated food intake and BMI-adjusted weight loss (WL) were evaluated. One-hundred fifty-two patients (76/group) were assessable. The proportion of patients reporting maintenance of usual daily food intake was similar in both groups: 69.7% (95% CI, 58.6-78.9) for DEX1 vs. 72.4% (95% CI, 61.4-81.2) for DEX4. Only CINV control was significantly associated with maintenance of usual daily food intake (P ≤ 0.001) during the overall phase. The DEX-sparing regimen does not adversely affect patient-reported daily food intake post-chemotherapy. The current analysis adds further insights into antiemetic efficacy of DEX sparing beyond day 1 in the challenging setting of cisplatin.Trial registration: The parent study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04201769).

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron with that of ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A total of 17 randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV were included. The primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV, which were measured in early, late, and overall phases. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of the administration time of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and divided into two phases: early phase and the end of surgery. A total of 17 studies with 1823 patients were included in the final analysis. The incidence of retching (relative risk [RR] = 0.525; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.390 to 0.707) and late POV (RR = 0.604; 95% CI = 0.404 to 0.903) was significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ramosetron group. No significant differences were demonstrated in the incidence of PON, PONV, complete response, use of antiemetics, and adverse effects. Subgroup analysis showed that palonosetron was superior to ramosetron in terms of early PON, late PON, overall POV, and use of rescue antiemetics when they were administered early; in terms of retching, regardless of the timing of administration. Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in terms of early PON when they were administered late. The prophylactic administration of palonosetron was more effective than that of ramosetron in preventing the development of retching and late POV. In this meta-analysis, no significant differences in PONV prevention between the two drugs were demonstrated. Further studies are required to validate the outcomes of our study.

Cancer treatments are frequently associated with nausea and vomiting despite greatly improved preventive medication. Administration of anti-nausea agents as eye drops might provide an 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-HT3 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 (VAS-AUC) by 98% compared with the vehicle, and reduced nausea-associated dog behavior by 95%. Vomiting was completely prevented with repeated palonosetron ocular dosing. Hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HP-β-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 to 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-β-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.

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.

Chemotherapeutic agent-induced nausea and vomiting are the severe adverse effects that are induced by their stimulations on the peripheral and/or central emetic nerve pathways. Even though ginger has been widely used as an herbal medicine to treat emesis, mechanisms underlying its neuronal actions are still less clear. The present study aimed to determine the chemotherapeutic agent vincristine-induced effect on gastroesophageal vagal afferent nerve endings and the potential inhibitory role of ginger constituent 6-shogaol on such response. Two-photon neuron imaging studies were performed in ex vivo gastroesophageal-vagal preparations from Pirt-GCaMP6 transgenic mice. Vincristine was applied to the gastroesophageal vagal afferent nerve endings, and the evoked calcium influxes in their intact nodose ganglion neuron somas were recorded. The responsive nodose neuron population was first characterized, and the inhibitory effects of 5-HT3 antagonist palonosetron, TRPA1 antagonist HC-030031, and ginger constituent 6-shogaol were then determined. Vincristine application at gastroesophageal vagal afferent nerve endings elicited intensive calcium influxes in a sub-population of vagal ganglion neurons. These neurons were characterized by their positive responses to P2X2/3 receptor agonist α,β-methylene ATP and TRPA1 agonist cinnamaldehyde, suggesting their nociceptive placodal nodose C-fiber neuron lineages. Pretreatment with TRPA1 selective blocker HC-030031 inhibited vincristine-induced calcium influxes in gastroesophageal nodose C-fiber neurons, indicating that TRPA1 played a functional role in mediating vincristine-induced activation response. Such inhibitory effect was comparable to that from 5-HT3 receptor antagonist palonosetron. Alternatively, pretreatment with ginger constituent 6-shogaol significantly attenuated vincristine-induced activation response. The present study provides new evidence that chemotherapeutic agent vincristine directly activates vagal nodose nociceptive C-fiber neurons at their peripheral nerve endings in the upper gastrointestinal tract. This activation response requires both TRPA1 and 5-HT3 receptors and can be attenuated by ginger constituent 6-shogaol.

Oral NEPA is the fixed-combination antiemetic comprising netupitant (neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist [NK1 RA]) and palonosetron (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist [5-HT3 RA]). Intravenous (IV) NEPA, containing fosnetupitant, a water-soluble N-phosphoryloxymethyl prodrug of netupitant, has been developed. Fosnetupitant does not require excipients or solubility enhancers often used to increase IV NK1 RA water solubility, preventing the occurrence of hypersensitivity and infusion-site reactions associated with these products. In this phase 1 study, subjects received a 30-minute placebo or fosnetupitant (17.6-353 mg) infusion and an oral NEPA or placebo capsule, with 2-sequence crossover treatment for fosnetupitant 118- to 353-mg dose cohorts. IV fosnetupitant safety and pharmacokinetics were evaluated, and its equivalence to an oral netupitant 300-mg dose was defined. Overall, 158 healthy volunteers were enrolled. All adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate in intensity. Doppler-identified infusion-site asymptomatic thrombosis occurred in 5.4% (fosnetupitant) and 1.2% (oral NEPA) of subjects. The frequency or number of treatment-related AEs did not increase with ascending fosnetupitant doses. The most common treatment-related AEs were headache (fosnetupitant, 8.1%; oral NEPA, 12.7%) and constipation (fosnetupitant, 1.4%; oral NEPA, 7.5%). A fosnetupitant 235-mg dose was equivalent, in terms of netupitant exposure, to 300-mg oral netupitant. The safety profile of a single fosnetupitant 235-mg infusion was similar to that of single-dose oral NEPA.

Background Female gender, young age, first chemotherapy cycle, and low alcohol intake have all been linked to an increased risk of nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy. We intended to see if netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) could prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with risk factors such as age, gender, chemotherapy cycle number, and alcohol consumption history. Methods In this retrospective study, chemotherapy-naïve patients who were prescribed netupitant (300 mg) and palonosetron (0.50 mg) (NEPA) before the first cycle of chemotherapy were analyzed for overall, acute, and delayed phases of complete response (CR), complete protection (CP), and control. Results In the acute phase (AP), delayed phase (DP), and overall phase (OP), complete response was 88.23%, 86.27%, and 86.27%, respectively; complete protection was 80.39%, 78.43%, and 76.47%, respectively; and complete control was 76.47%, 72.54%, and 70.58%, respectively, in the whole population (i.e., 51 patients). Complete response, protection, and control in the overall phase were achieved by 86.27%, 72.72%, and 68.18% of patients who received the highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) regimen (i.e., 44 patients), respectively. Conclusion NEPA provided a consistent magnitude of benefit for patients who are at high risk, receiving HEC and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), and having good control in the acute, delayed, and overall phases of CINV.

The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of the bolus administration of PLS via skin by using dissolving microneedles of palonosetron hydrochloride (PLS-DMNs). Tip-loaded PLS-DMNs were fabricated by a casting method using sodium hyaluronate (HA) as DMNs-forming polymer. PLS-DMNs were shown to have a content of 118.5 ± 8.7 μg per piece with sufficient mechanical strength for insertion into pig skin ex vivo. In situ dissolution of PLS-DMNs was achieved within 5 min and 83.2 % of PLS was delivered. In vitro studies showed that PLS-DMNs provided much higher PLS permeation than that after passive permeation using a PLS hydrogel. Moreover, the application of 30 min-iontophoresis at the beginning of PLS-DMNs administration further enhanced PLS delivery. In vivo pharmacokinetic studies were carried out in rats. The area under the curve (AUC) and the time to reach the peak (Tmax) after application of PLS-DMNs was not significantly different compared to those after subcutaneous (S.C.) injection. PLS-DMNs plus 30 min-iontophoresis enabled the pharmacokinetic profile to be even closer to that seen after S.C. administration. These results suggest that application of PLS-DMNs with short-duration iontophoresis exhibits promise as an alternative PLS delivery method that can be painlessly self-administered with rapid onset.

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.

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.

Bile salts are a category of natural chiral surfactants which have ever been used as the surfactant and chiral selector for the separation of many chiral compounds by micellar electrokinetic chromatography (MEKC). In our previous works, the application of sodium cholate (SC) in the separation of four stereoisomers of palonosetron (PALO) by MEKC has been studied systematically. In this work, the parameters of other bile salts, including sodium taurocholate (STC), sodium deoxycholate (SDC), and sodium taurodeoxycholate (STDC) in the separation of PALO stereoisomers by MEKC were measured and compared with SC. It was found that all of four bile salts provide chiral recognition for both pairs of enantiomers, as well as achiral selectivity for diastereomers of different degrees. The structure of steroidal ring of bile salts has a greater impact on the separation than the structure of the side chain. The varying separation results by different bile salts were elucidated based on the measured parameters. A model to describe the contributions of the mobility difference of solutes in the aqueous phase and the selectivity of micelles to the chiral and achiral separation of stereoisomers was introduced. Additionally, a new approach to measure the mobility of micelles without enough solubility for hydrophobic markers was proposed, which is necessary for the calculation of separation parameters in MEKC. Under the guidance of derived equations, the separation by SDC and STDC was significantly improved by using lower surfactant concentrations. The complete separation of four stereoisomers was achieved in less than 3.5 min by using 4.0 mM of SDC. In addition, 30.0 mM of STC also provided the complete resolution of four stereoisomers due to the balance of different separation mechanisms. Its applicability for the analysis of a small amount of enantiomeric impurities in the presence of a high concentration of the effective ingredient was validated by a real sample.

This paper presents a novel potentiometric approach for the determination of palonosetron HCl using two sensors; ionophore-free and ionophore-doped ones. The two sensors successfully determined the cited drug in the range of 1 × 10-5-1 × 10-2 M with respective Nernstian slopes of 54.9 ± 0.25 and 59.3 ± 0.16 mV/decade. Incorporating calix[8]arene as an ionophore resulted in a lower detection limit (LOD = 3.1 × 10-6 M) and enhanced selectivity when compared to the ionophore-free sensor (LOD = 7.9 × 10-6 M). This modification was also associated with faster response for the ionophore-doped sensor (response time = 20 s) compared to the ionophore-free one (response time = 30 s). The two sensors showed a stable response over a pH range of 3.0-8.0. They successfully determined palonosetron HCl in presence of its oxidative degradation products. They were also used for direct determination of the drug in commercially available parenteral solution without any interference from other dosage forms' additives.

Despite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by using dexamethasone combined with palonosetron for patients who received moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), some of these patients still suffer from CINV. We evaluated whether aprepitant combined with palonosetron can improve the efficacy in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving MEC.

A triple antiemetic therapy combining aprepitant (APR) with conventional double antiemetic therapy, including 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT₃-RA) and dexamethasone (DEX), is recommended for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting induced by a carboplatin (CBDCA) regimen. However, consensus on the additive effects of APR for gynecological patients on a combined regimen of paclitaxel and CBDCA (TC regimen) has yet to be reached. This retrospective study investigated the antiemetic effects of palonosetron and DEX (PD therapy) and granisetron and DEX with APR (GDA therapy) in patients with gynecologic cancer and who underwent their first TC regimen cycle between April 2017 and March 2020 at the Gunma University Hospital Outpatient Chemotherapy Center. The results showed that the complete response rate of the 92 patients who underwent PD therapy (PD group) and the 46 patients who underwent GDA therapy (GDA group) were both 80.4% (p = 1.000), and the complete control rates of the PD and GDA groups were 78.3% and 80.4%, respectively (p = 0.828), resulting in no significant difference. Furthermore, we observed no significant difference between the PD and GDA groups in the incidence of grade ≥2 nausea, vomiting, and anorexia (nausea: 7.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.095; vomiting: 4.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.301; and anorexia: 9.8% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.164). Concerning adverse events, compared to the PD group, the GDA group showed significantly higher incidence of grade ≥2 malaise (7.6% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.039). Given the lack of difference in the antiemetic effects of PD and GDA therapies, antiemetic therapy should be selected carefully for individual patients by accounting for the incidence of adverse reactions and interactions with APR.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the single use of fosaprepitant is not inferior to the use of palonosetron as antiemetic prophylaxis in the first 48 h after surgery in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Method: Eighty-eight nonsmoking women (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II) aged between 18 and 60 years who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy received 150 mg of fosaprepitant or 75 μg of palonosetron, administered intravenously after the induction of general anesthesia. Results: In the fosaprepitant group and in the palonosetron group, 13.6 and 18.2% of the patients, respectively, vomited in the first 48 h after surgery (p = 0.560). There were no differences between groups in the total frequency and intensity of nausea, number of complete responders, need for rescue medication, time required for the first rescue medication dose or number of adverse events. Conclusion: The administration of a single dose of fosaprepitant after the induction of anesthesia was as effective as the administration of a single dose of palonosetron for the prophylaxis of vomiting in the first 48 h after surgery in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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.