Search

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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 P2X 2/3 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.

Since westernized diet-induced insulin resistance is a risk factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD) development, and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) coexists with amyloid β (Aβ)1-42 in these patients, our AD novel model was developed to resemble sporadic AD by injecting LPS into high fat/fructose diet (HFFD)-fed rats. The neuroprotective potential of palonosetron and/or methyllycaconitine, 5-HT3 receptor and α7 nAChR blockers, respectively, was evaluated after 8 days of daily administration in HFFD/LPS rats. All regimens improved histopathological findings and enhanced spatial memory (Morris Water Maze); however, palonosetron alone or with methyllycaconitine promoted animal performance during novel object recognition tests. In the hippocampus, all regimens reduced the expression of glial fibrillary acidic protein and skewed microglia M1 to M2 phenotype, indicated by the decreased M1 markers and the enhanced M2 related parameters. Additionally, palonosetron and its combination regimen downregulated the expression of ASC/TMS1, as well as levels of inflammasome downstream molecules and abated cleaved caspase-1, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-18 and caspase-11. Furthermore, ACh and 5-HT were augmented after being hampered by the insult. Our study speculates that blocking 5-HT3 receptor using palonosetron overrides methyllycaconitine to combat AD-induced neuroinflammation and inflammasome cascade, as well as to restore microglial function in a HFFD/LPS novel model for sporadic AD.

NEPA is the only fixed combination antiemetic, comprised of an NK 1 RA (netupitant) and a 5-HT 3 RA (palonosetron). In the first head-to-head trial to compare NK 1 RA-containing regimens, a single oral dose of NEPA was non-inferior to a 3-day aprepitant/granisetron (APR/GRAN) regimen for the primary endpoint of overall (0-120 hours) complete response (no emesis/no rescue). This pre-specified analysis evaluates the efficacy of NEPA versus APR/GRAN in the subset of Chinese patients in the study. In addition, efficacy in patients at greatest emetic risk receiving high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m 2 ) was explored. Chemotherapy-naïve patients with solid tumors in this randomized, double-blind study received either a single dose of NEPA prior to cisplatin-based chemotherapy or a 3-day regimen of APR/GRAN, both with dexamethasone on Days 1-4. Efficacy was evaluated through complete response, no emesis, and no significant nausea rates during the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (25-120 hours) and overall phases as well as individual days post-chemotherapy, as the daily course of CINV protection is often unstudied. The Chinese subset included 667 patients; of these, 363 (54%) received high-dose cisplatin. Baseline characteristics were comparable. While response rates were similar for NEPA and APR/GRAN during the acute, delayed and overall phases, significantly fewer NEPA patients experienced breakthrough CINV on individual Days 3-5 in both the Chinese patients and also in those receiving high-dose cisplatin. As a fixed oral NK 1 RA/5HT 3 RA combination given once/cycle, NEPA is a convenient highly effective prophylactic antiemetic that may offer better protection from CINV than a 3-day APR/GRAN regimen on Days 3-5 following highly emetogenic chemotherapy., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Review the clinical evidence of tropisetron or palonosetron, an old- and new-generation serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist (RA), respectively, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients with cancer, and evaluate any difference in efficacy trends. A literature search of the EMBASE and PubMed databases was performed to identify publications of intravenous (IV) tropisetron (generic forms or Navoban®) for the treatment of CINV in patients with various cancers. Data from the pivotal clinical studies evaluating the IV formulation of Aloxi® (palonosetron HCl) were also considered. The effectiveness and safety of each antiemetic was summarized. Sixteen papers for tropisetron fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were extracted for full analysis; publications from six pivotal palonosetron clinical trials were considered. No direct data comparisons could be made between the two drugs, due to the varying definitions of efficacy endpoints between studies. For tropisetron, the rates of no emesis were lower in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) versus moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). For palonosetron, the rates of complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication) were comparable in the MEC and HEC settings, demonstrating the effectiveness of this agent in patients receiving HEC. Both antiemetics offered some protection against nausea, although lower rates of no nausea were achieved compared with rates of no emesis. Two trials that evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron and tropisetron within the same study reported that palonosetron was more effective than tropisetron in controlling delayed vomiting in the HEC and MEC settings, with significantly higher rates of no emesis observed (P≤0.01). Palonosetron was non-inferior or more efficacious in controlling CINV compared with other older 5-HT3RAs, such as dolasetron, ondansetron, and granisetron. Conversely, tropisetron was no more efficacious than ondansetron or granisetron. Both tropisetron and palonosetron were generally well tolerated, with adverse event profiles consistent with drugs of this class (e.g., headache, constipation, and diarrhea). These data suggest that palonosetron is a highly selective prophylactic agent that may have an improved therapeutic profile compared with tropisetron, and is a feasible treatment option for controlling CINV in patients with cancer.

Purpose: To assess, from a United States (US) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis using a single dose of netupitant and palonosetron in a fixed combination (NEPA) versus aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN), each in combination with dexamethasone, in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)., Methods: We analyzed patient-level outcomes over a 5-day post-HEC period from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial of NEPA (n = 412) versus APR + GRAN (n = 416). Costs and CINV-related utilities were assigned to each subject using published sources. Parameter uncertainty was addressed via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA)., Results: Compared to APR + GRAN, NEPA resulted in a gain of 0.09 quality-adjusted life-days (QALDs) (4.04 vs 3.95; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.25) and a significant total per-patient cost reduction of $309 ($943 vs $1252; 95% CI $4-$626), due principally to $258 in lower medical costs of CINV-related events ($409 vs $668; 95% CI -$46 to $572) and $45 in lower study drug costs ($531 vs $577). In the PSA, NEPA resulted in lower costs and higher QALD in 86.5% of cases and cost ≤ $25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in 97.8% of cases., Conclusions: This first-ever economic analysis using patient-level data from a phase 3 trial comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) antiemetic regimens suggests that NEPA is highly cost-effective (and in fact cost-saving) versus an aprepitant-based regimen in post-HEC CINV prevention. Actual savings may be higher, as we focused only on the first chemotherapy cycle and omitted the impact of CINV-related chemotherapy discontinuation.

Background: A dexamethasone-sparing regimen consisting of palonosetron plus 1-day dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has been studied previously. Here, we evaluate the noninferiority of the dexamethasone-sparing regimen in overall antiemetic control using a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD)., Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review for randomized trials reporting CINV outcomes for the comparison of palonosetron plus 1-day dexamethasone (d1 arm) versus the same regimen followed by dexamethasone on days 2-3 after chemotherapy (d3 arm) in chemotherapy-naïve adult patients undergoing either moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC)-containing chemotherapy. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched electronically. A manual search was also conducted. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue medication) in the overall 5-day study period. The noninferiority margin was set at -8.0% (d1 arm-d3 arm)., Results: Five studies ( n = 1,194) were eligible for analysis and all IPD was collected. In the overall study period, the d1 arm showed noninferiority to the d3 arm for CR as well as complete control (pooled risk difference in CR rate - 1.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.1 to 4.0%, I 2 = 0%; in complete control rate - 2.4%, 95% CI -7.7 to 2.9%, I 2 = 0%). There was no significant interaction between dexamethasone regimen and risk factors (type of chemotherapy, sex, age, and alcohol consumption)., Conclusion: This IPD meta-analysis indicates that the dexamethasone-sparing regimen is not associated with a significant loss in overall antiemetic control in patients undergoing MEC or AC-containing chemotherapy, irrespective of known risk factors for CINV., Implications for Practice: Although dexamethasone in combination with other antiemetic agents has been used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), it is of clinical importance to minimize total dose of dexamethasone in patients undergoing multiple cycles of emetogenic chemotherapy. This individual-patient-data meta-analysis from five randomized controlled trials (1,194 patients) demonstrated a noninferiority of the dexamethasone-sparing regimen for complete response and complete control of CINV. The outcomes were comparable across patients with different characteristics. These findings thus help physicians minimize use of the steroid and further reduce the burden of dexamethasone-related side effects in patients undergoing multiple consecutive courses of emetogenic chemotherapy., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

5-HT 3 R antagonists such as ondansetron, granisetron and tropisetron have been clinically used to treat nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients. However, current study and research revealed novel potentials of these ligands in other diseases like inflammation, Alzheimer's, and drug abuse. Towards utilising these drugs as anti-smoking agents to treat nicotine dependence problem, there are conflicting reports regarding the potential of these ligands in modulating the effects of nicotine in both human and animal behavioural studies. This is complicated by the heterogeneity of 5-HT 3 R itself, cross regulation between nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptor (nAChR) and distinct pharmacological profiles of 5-HT 3 R antagonists. This review gathered existing studies conducted investigating the potential of "-setron" class of 5-HT 3 R antagonists in modulating nicotine effects. We proposed that the mechanism where 5-HT 3 R antagonists mediate the effects of nicotine could be attributed by both direct at 5-HT 3 R and indirect mechanism in nicotine addiction downstream regulation. The indirect mechanism mediated by the 5-HT 3 R antagonist could be through α7 nAChR, 5-HT 1B receptor (5-HT 1B R), 5-HT 1C receptor (5-HT 1C R), calcineurin activity, p38 MAPK level, PPAR-γ and NF-κβ. Our review suggested that future studies should focus on newer 5-HT 3 R antagonist with superior pharmacological profile or the one with multitarget action rather than high selectivity at single receptor., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) continues to be a common side effect of systemic anticancer therapy, decreasing quality of life and increasing resource utilization. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of palonosetron relative to other 5-HT 3 RAs., Methods: A literature search was carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Full-text references were then screened and included in this meta-analysis if they were an RCT and had adequate data regarding one of the five primary endpoints-complete response (CR), complete control (CC), no emesis, no nausea, or no rescue medications., Results: A total of 24 RCTs were included in this review. Palonosetron was statistically superior to other 5-HT 3 RAs for 10 of the 19 assessed endpoints. Only one endpoint-emesis in the overall phase-had noticeable more favorable data for palonosetron to the point that it approached the 10% risk difference (RD) threshold as specified by the MASCC/ESMO antiemetic panel; another two endpoints (CR in the overall phase and nausea in the delayed phase) approached the 10% threshold., Conclusions: Palonosetron seems to be more efficacious and safe than other 5-HT 3 RAs-statistically superior in 10 of 19 endpoints. It is, however, only clinically significant in one endpoint and approached clinically significant difference in another two endpoints. Within the limits of this meta-analysis, our results indicate that palonosetron may not be as superior in efficacy and safety as reported in a previous meta-analysis, and supports the recent MASCC/ESMO, ASCO, and NCCN guidelines in not generally indicating palonosetron as the 5-HT 3 RA of choice.

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the antiemetic efficacy and safety of palonosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone in patients with testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs) receiving 5-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy., Methods: In this open-label, single-arm, single-centre study, the antiemetic therapy consisted of palonosetron 0.75 mg on day 1, aprepitant 125 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on days 2-7 and dexamethasone 6.6 mg on days 1-7. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching or rescue medication) in the overall period (0-240 h), and secondary endpoints included complete protection (CP; defined as CR and no more than mild nausea) and total control (TC; defined as CR and no nausea). The incidence and severity of nausea were assessed on the basis of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 and a subjective rating scale completed by patients., Results: Twenty-five patients were enrolled and evaluated for safety, and 24 patients were evaluated for efficacy. CR was achieved in 62.5% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] = 40.6-81.2, p = 0.043) in the overall period. CP and TC were achieved in 62.5% (95% CI = 40.6-81.2) and 25.0% of patients (95% CI = 9.8-46.7), respectively, in the overall period. The primary adverse drug reaction was hiccups (48.0%). The events were expected, and none was grade 3 or 4., Conclusions: The examined combination antiemetic therapy was effective and well-tolerated in patients with TGCTs receiving 5-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

Purpose: Patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy are at high risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a distressing side effect of treatment. This post-hoc subgroup analysis of two pivotal trials evaluated the efficacy of NEPA in preventing CINV in subsets of patients with lung cancer who received cisplatin or carboplatin., Methods: In each study, the efficacy endpoints complete response (CR; defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) and no significant nausea (NSN; defined as a score of < 25 mm on a visual analog scale of 0-100 mm) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy in cycle 1 (study 1) and cycles 1-4 (study 2) were assessed. Safety was evaluated by recording treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related AEs., Results: NEPA treatment resulted in high CR rates across the acute, delayed, and overall phases (cisplatin: > 88% overall CR; carboplatin: > 75% overall CR), with higher CR rates for NEPA-treated patients than those receiving palonosetron; moreover, CR rates were sustained over multiple chemotherapy cycles (> 75%). High rates of NSN observed during cycle 1 (> 79%) were also maintained over multiple chemotherapy cycles. NEPA was well tolerated in all patients., Conclusions: NEPA appears to be effective and well tolerated in patients with lung cancer receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, across the acute, delayed, and overall phases and throughout multiple cycles. As a highly effective oral combination antiemetic agent administered as a single dose once per cycle, NEPA may offer a convenient, simplified prophylactic antiemetic.